Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv1372

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLIED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING,

INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1372 DMS (POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

[Docket No. 24] 

vs.

MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, entity unknown,

et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for leave to conduct

discovery to oppose the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant MiraCosta Community College District

(“MiraCosta”). MiraCosta filed an opposition to the motion, as did Defendants Teleskills, LLC, Burt

Price, Thomas Cawley, Xavier Uribe, Mara Glenn and Janis Aydelott (“Teleskills Defendants”).

Plaintiff also filed a supplemental declaration in support of its motion. 

MiraCosta’s motion to dismiss is based on the Eleventh Amendment and the California Tort

Claims Act. Specifically, MiraCosta argues it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment,

and Plaintiff failed to file a government claim form prior to filing this case as required by the

California Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff seeks discovery on the Eleventh Amendment defense only.

Specifically, it seeks discovery on “[t]he extent to which MiraCosta relies upon state funding,

including how any judgments would be, or have in the past been, satisfied[,]” “[t]he governance,

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 33 Filed 11/02/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv1372

formation, maintenance, and operation of MiraCosta,” and “MiraCosta’s relationship with coDefendant Ameri-Skills.” (Ex Parte Mot. at 7.) 

“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery, and a decision

‘to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery

results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.’” Laub v. United States Dep’t

of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 287 F.3d 1193, 1212 (9th

Cir. 2002)). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “discovery should be granted when ... the jurisdictional

facts are contested or more facts are needed.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff asserts that the jurisdictional facts are contested in light of an article in the San

Diego Union Tribune. (See Ex Parte Mot. at 6.) That article states that MiraCosta “receives zero

support from the state’s general fund[.]” (Decl. of John Alessio in Supp. of Ex Parte Mot. (“Alessio

Decl.”), Ex. A.) MiraCosta argues this statement is inadmissible hearsay, and thus insufficient to raise

a dispute about the jurisdictional facts. (Opp’n to Ex Parte Mot. at 6.) It also asserts the statement

is false. (Id.) The Court agrees with MiraCosta that the article is hearsay. See Twardowski v.

American Airlines, 535 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding newspaper article to be hearsay).

Without it, there is no dispute about the jurisdictional facts. Indeed, the facts necessary to resolve the

jurisdictional dispute are laid out in the Declaration of James E. Austin, the Vice President of Business

and Administrative Services for MiraCosta. In that Declaration, Mr. Austin explains the sources of

MiraCosta’s funding, (Decl. of James E. Austin ¶¶ 9-10), and what funds are used to pay any

monetary judgments against MiraCosta. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15.) He also attaches a copy of MiraCosta’s

budgets for 2009 and 2010. (Id., Ex. A.) 

In addition to these facts, Plaintiff has also been provided or directed to public documents

concerning MiraCosta’s finances, (Alessio Decl., Ex. I), governance (Alessio Decl., Ex. H), and its

relationship with Teleskills. (Alessio Decl., Ex. J.) Although Plaintiff was not provided with every

document it requested, (see Suppl. Decl. of Ryan C. Caplan in Supp. of Ex Parte Mot.), it has more

than enough facts to oppose MiraCosta’s motion. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 33 Filed 11/02/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv1372

For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for leave to conduct discovery.

Plaintiff shall proceed to file its opposition to the motion on November 5, 2010, and Defendants shall

file their reply briefs on or before November 12, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 33 Filed 11/02/10 Page 3 of 3