Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00817/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00817-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346t Tort Claim

---

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

07cv817 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSWALDO ENRIQUE TOBAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07CV817 WQH (WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL

I.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter was transferred to the Southern District on May 4, 2007. [Doc. No. 1.] The

Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) on June 14, 2007. [Doc. No. 5.]

Following the ENE, the Court required the Defendant to file its anticipated 12(b)(1) motion no later

than August 31, 2007. Id. In anticipation of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, the Court did not lift the initial stay of discovery in the case. [Local Civil Rule 16.1(c);

Doc. No. 2].

On July 27, 2007, the Court held a telephonic status conference as requested by the parties.

[Doc. No. 8.] At the telephonic status conference, the Court denied without prejudice, Plaintiffs’

oral motion for discovery to respond to Defendant’s anticipated 12(b)(1) motion because said motion

had not yet been filed. Defendant filed its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on August 31, 2007. [Doc. Nos. 10-15.] Plaintiffs

Case 3:07-cv-00817-WQH-JLB Document 24 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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 07cv817 WQH (WMc)

renewed their motion for discovery by filing ex parte papers on September 5, 2007. [Doc. No. 16.]

The Court held a discovery conference on September 12, 2007. Walter Boyaki appeared for

Plaintiffs and R.S. Blaze appeared for Defendant. [Doc. No. 18.] Following the conference, the

Court ordered both parties to exchange all documentary evidence and contact information identified

in the parties’ Rule 26 disclosure lists. The Court also ordered further briefing following the

discovery conference, which was to concentrate on two issues: “(a) may Plaintiffs take deposition

in order to support their opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and (b) are depositions needed?” Id. at 1:25-27. Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing

on September 26, 2007 and October 2, 2007. [Doc Nos. 20-21.] Defendant filed its supplemental

briefing in opposition on October 11, 2007. [Doc. No. 22.] 

After careful consideration of remarks made by counsel of record at the September 12, 2007

discovery conference, all supplemental briefing filed and exhibits thereto, the Court DENIES

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

II.

ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs’ Argument

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s motion relies on jurisdictional issues which are so

intertwined with substantive issues that discovery is needed to oppose facts raised by the motion. 

[Doc. No. 20 at 4.] Specifically, Plaintiffs contend they require additional information about

facts underlying the discretionary function defense and law enforcement defense. Id. at 5. 

B. Defendant’s Argument

Defendant reiterates that its motion is not one for summary judgment, but a motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the existence of sovereign immunity. [Doc.

No. 22 at 3.] Defendant argues that its motion is based on jurisdictional facts set forth by

Plaintiffs in their own complaint and that discovery is immaterial to the jurisdictional arguments

presented in its motion to dismiss. Id. at 4-6. 

Case 3:07-cv-00817-WQH-JLB Document 24 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

The Court notes that the issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is not an issue for

this Court, but an issue to be determined by the district judge assigned to this matter, the Honorable

William Q. Hayes. 

3 07cv817 WQH (WMc)

III.

STANDARDS

A trial Court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. Wells Fargo & Company

v. Well Fargo Express Company, 556 F.2d 406, 430 (9th Cir.1977). Accordingly, a court may

allow discovery to aid in determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Whether or

not to grant such discovery is left to the discretion of the court. Id.

IV.

DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s underlying motion to dismiss and finds that it is clearly

noticed and written as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1). [Doc. Nos. 10-11.]1

 

The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ request for the deposition of Lt. Commander Ellis

[Doc. No. 20 at 6], and finds that such discovery is not necessary to demonstrate facts in opposition

to the jurisdictional issues raised in Defendant’s 12(b)(1) motion. Wells Fargo & Company, 556

F.2d at 430 (9th Cir.1977). In particular, the alleged agreement between the Ecuadorian

government and agents of the United States about which Plaintiffs propose deposing Lt. Commander

Ellis, is not referenced anywhere in the Defendant’s motion. Moreover, Plaintiffs are not prejudiced

by a continued stay of discovery until the motion to dismiss is resolved by the District Judge. Id.

at 430 (“An appellate court will not interfere with the trial court’s refusal to grant discovery except

upon the clearest showing that . . . . actual and substantial prejudice to the litigant” resulted.) This

Court ordered at the September 12, 2007 discovery conference that each party had to produce and

exchange the actual documents identified in their Rule 26 disclosure lists. Plaintiffs have confirmed

in its supplemental letter brief of October 2, 2007 that the government has complied with the Court’s

order. From the numerous exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their motion to compel, it

is clear that Plaintiffs have ample material with which to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-00817-WQH-JLB Document 24 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4 07cv817 WQH (WMc)

V.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

COPY TO:

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 3:07-cv-00817-WQH-JLB Document 24 Filed 11/07/07 Page 4 of 4