Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01249/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01249-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

 There are multiple named defendants, most going by some derivation of “Crest,” all of

which are represented by the same counsel. Defense counsel’s papers appear to refer to these

defendants, collectively, as “Crest Oil & Gas Management Corporation.”

2

 The court notes that plaintiffs misspelled Horan’s name in the notice of deposition, and

that defendants “objected” to the notice on that and other minor grounds. Despite these

misspellings, the court finds that given the extended efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel to obtain

Horan’s deposition, defendants had sufficient notice as to which person plaintiffs wished to

depose. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARYLAN J. BENSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1249 FCD EFB 

vs.

CREST OIL & GAS MANAGEMENT ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

CORP., et al., DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S AND

 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Defendants. 

 /

This case was before the court on September 20, 2006, for hearing on both

parties’ motions to compel. On July 5, 2006, defendant Crest Oil & Gas Management

Corporation (“Crest”)1

 filed a motion to compel the deposition of Laura Quinn (“Quinn”), and to

continue the deposition of Marylan J. Benson (“Benson”). On August 1, 2006, plaintiffs moved

to compel the deposition of Edwin P. Horan (“Horan”).2 In addition to the motions to compel,

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 89 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

each party has requested sanctions. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to

compel. Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. Gregory J. Brod appeared at the

hearing on behalf of defendants and Larry Rothman appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. For the

reasons stated at oral argument and as set forth below, both motions are granted in part and

denied in part.

BACKGROUND

This case was removed to federal court on June 30, 2004 on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. In short, the underlying action concerns plaintiffs’ investment in various oil wells

owned or controlled by defendants, and includes causes of action ranging from breach of

contract to fraud. The litigation of this case has been characterized by continued failures by both

counsel to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this district’s Local Rules.

The parties failed to meet the June 30, 2006 discovery cutoff date set in the

Scheduling Order issued on July 22, 2005. Nonetheless, the parties were accommodated by an

amendment to the scheduling order to permit hearings on these motions to compel. Despite the

parties’ failure to file a joint stipulation as required by Local Rule 37-251(c), this court decided

to hear the matter as scheduled in order to resolve the discovery dispute quickly in light of a

pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the summary judgment motion

included a Rule 56(f), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), request for a

continuance pending requested discovery that is implicated by the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

At oral argument, the court granted in part and denied in part both motions and set

dates for the completion of all three depositions (i.e. Horan, Benson, and Quinn).

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), the court has the power to compel discovery,

including depositions. The court finds it appropriate to exercise that power given the

circumstances of this case. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 89 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

A. Motion to Compel Depositions of Benson and Quinn

Plaintiffs do not object to either the continued deposition of Ms. Benson or the

deposition of Ms. Quinn. This motion appears to be the result solely of the failure of counsel to

communicate effectively with each other. Accordingly, these depositions were scheduled by the

court at oral argument on the motions.

As for resumption of the Benson deposition, defense counsel, Mr. Brod, began

taking Ms. Benson’s deposition on June 2, 2006, but was apparently unable to complete it for

various reasons, including Mr. Rothman’s travel plans and his insistence on examining Ms.

Benson himself. Although the deposition took place pursuant to defendants’ notice of

deposition, the court instructs counsel for both parties that Mr. Rothman does have a right to

depose his own client to preserve her testimony. (Ms. Benson is 80 years old.) However, if he

chooses to do so, any additional cost occasioned by Mr. Rothman’s portion of the deposition

shall be borne by plaintiffs. 

As for the Quinn deposition, Mr. Brod argues that he only learned of Quinn’s

existence during the June 2, 2006, Benson deposition. Afterwards, Mr. Brod argues, he noticed

Quinn’s deposition and re-noticed a continuation of the Benson deposition. Apparently,

plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the proposed dates, and both counsel failed to work out an

agreeable schedule for completing the depositions. 

Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Quinn and to resume the

continuation of the Benson deposition is GRANTED in part, as specified below. 

B. Motion to Compel Horan’s Deposition

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Horan’s deposition on August 1, 2006. 

According to plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Horan is the custodian of records for Crest and has

information regarding the transactions underlying this case. Plaintiffs noticed Horan’s

deposition for March 10, 2006, in Houston. After Mr. Rothman had flown to Houston to take the

deposition, defendants’ counsel, having no authority to do so, unilaterally refused to produce

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 89 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Horan until plaintiffs supplemented their initial disclosures. Mr. Rothman re-noticed Horan’s

deposition for July 13, 2006, based on Mr. Brod’s representations as to his client’s availability

on that date. However, Brod objected to that notice based on spelling and other technical errors,

and communicated to Mr. Rothman that Horan was no longer available on that date. Plaintiffs

filed the motion to compel Horan’s deposition on August 1, 2006. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel

is GRANTED in part, and Horan’s deposition shall take place as specified below. 

C. Sanctions

In the papers supporting defendants’ motion to compel, defendants request

sanctions precluding plaintiffs from using Quinn’s testimony for the remainder of the case. 

Defendants request additional sanctions by requiring Benson and Quinn to travel to Sacramento

for their depositions, and also appear to ask the court to sanction plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11 based on the “lack of evidentiary support” in plaintiffs’ pleadings despite their

“reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.” Defendants’ Opposition to

Motion to Compel, at p. 5. As discussed above, plaintiffs have not had a “reasonable

opportunity” for discovery given defendants’ repeated refusals to produce Horan for deposition. 

Further, Brod’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions is not properly made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A)

(“a motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or

requests”). Each of these requests for sanctions is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs request sanctions in an amount equaling the costs related to Mr.

Rothman’s travel to Houston and preparation for the Horan deposition and for two days of lost

time. In lieu of monetary sanctions, the court is ordering that the Horan deposition shall occur at

Mr. Rothman’s office in Orange, California. In all other respects, plaintiffs’ motion for

sanctions is DENIED. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A), when the court grants a

motion to compel, it must require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the

moving party’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, unless “other circumstances

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 89 Filed 09/27/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). Further, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A), where the motion is “granted in part and denied in part,” the court has

discretion whether or not to apportion expenses incurred in relation to the motion(s). Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). 

The court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART BOTH MOTIONS TO

COMPEL and declines to award either party expenses related to either motion. The court

DENIES the requests for sanctions made by both parties, as explained above. The court

GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to compel Horan’s deposition and GRANTS defendants’ motion to

compel the deposition of Quinn and to resume the continuation of the Benson deposition. Given

the dismaying history of both counsels’ conduct leading to these motions, including their failure

to communicate effectively and to follow both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this

district’s Local Rules, the court finds that an award of expenses to either party is not justified.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel and request for sanctions is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED except as specified in

paragraph 3 below; 

3. Defendants shall produce Horan for deposition in Orange, California, on

October 17, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.; 

4. Plaintiffs shall produce Marylan Benson and Laura Quinn for deposition on

November 2, 2006 through November 3, 2006. The deposition shall occur by means of video

conference technology so that Benson and Quinn may remain in Michigan and Brod may remain

in California. Messrs. Brod and Rothman shall communicate in advance of this deposition

regarding the video conferencing arrangements and Mr. Rothman shall bear any additional cost

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 89 Filed 09/27/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

attributable to his examination of his client for purposes of preserving testimony;

5. Counsel are admonished that the failure to comply with this order will result in

sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 

DATED: September 26, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 89 Filed 09/27/06 Page 6 of 6