Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02818/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02818-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN SACA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2818 MCE EFB

vs.

J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO LTD., et al., 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

This case was before the undersigned on February 27, 2008, for hearing on plaintiff’s

motion to compel compliance with previous discovery orders, for relief from the limits on

depositions set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, and for evidentiary sanctions. Port J. Parker and

Suzanne M. Alves appeared as plaintiff’s counsel and I. Hooshie Broomand appeared as defense

counsel. For the reasons stated on the record and set forth below, plaintiff’s motion was granted

in part and denied in part. 

Because this case has previously been before the court on no fewer than seventeen

discovery motions, the court will not rehash the factual background of this litigation. 

Nonetheless, the court notes that discovery in this case has been characterized by acrimony, due

in part to failures to meet and confer and communicate in a productive and meaningful way. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 181 Filed 03/25/08 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

2

The case has also been marked by repeated “emergency applications” to hear and decide

discovery motions on an expedited basis. As a result of these problems, the parties again find

themselves up against an impending discovery deadline (the first deadline having been extended

once by the district judge). Given the significant amount of discovery propounded on

defendants, the hurried manner in which prior motions have been brought, and the lack of meet

and confer efforts by the parties, the court attributes defendants’ slow and staggered production

of documents to an evolving understanding of what plaintiff actually seeks, and not bad faith. 

That said, plaintiff should not be required to bring discovery motions to get documents he is

entitled to and which could reasonably be construed as having been responsive to previous

discovery requests. 

Based on the foregoing, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions,

which would be tantamount to a judgment in its favor. However, the court granted most other

relief requested by plaintiff and taxed costs associated with reconvening various depositions to

defendants. In that respect, the court summarizes the orders made at the February 27, 2008,

hearing as set forth below: 

1. Defendants were ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the hearing,

documents evidencing their calendars from 2003 to 2006, including responsive information

maintained on portable handheld devices. In particular, defendants were ordered to produce

documents reflecting the calendars of Juan-Pablo Molyneux and Douglas Stine for the years

2005 and 2006. To the extent all such documents had been previously produced, defendants

were ordered to provide a certification to that effect. 

2. Defendants were ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the hearing,

documents reflecting expenses charged to plaintiff by defendants, including supporting

documentation for plotting expenses, receipts for photocopying and travel, and other relevant

vendor information. To the extent all such documents had been previously produced, defendants

were ordered to provide a certification to that effect. 

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 181 Filed 03/25/08 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

1

 The court notes that plaintiff will have the opportunity to depose defendants’

accountant, and that plaintiff already has voluminous documentation reflecting the net worth of

defendants for purposes of his punitive damages claim. 

3

3. Defendants were further ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the

hearing, documents reflecting telephone message logs for the relevant time period. To the extent

all such documents had been produced, defendants were ordered to provide a certification to that

effect. 

4. Defendants were ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the hearing,

documents reflecting time records for hourly service fees charged by defendants’ employees and

independent contractors during the relevant time period. To the extent all such documents had

been produced, defendants were ordered to provide a certification to that effect. 

5. Defendants were also ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the

hearing, documents reflecting receipts for FedEx, UPS and other overnight delivery services,

during the relevant time period. To the extent all such documents had been produced,

defendants were ordered to provide a certification to that effect. 

6. Defendants were ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the hearing,

documents reflecting how payments by plaintiff were directed or used by defendants, including

check registers, balance sheets, income statements, bank statements, and documents reflecting

accounts payable/receivable for the relevant time period.1

 To the extent all such documents had

been produced, defendants were ordered to provide a certification to that effect.

7. Defendants were ordered to produce, within fifteen days from the date of the hearing,

documents reflecting any business licenses held by defendants. To the extent all such documents

had been produced, or none exist, defendants were ordered to provide a certification to that

effect.

8. In light of the documentation produced the day of, and subsequent to, several

depositions, the court finds good cause for reconvening the following depositions as specified: 

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 181 Filed 03/25/08 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

4

Jung Jim Kim for two-and-a-half hours; Doug Stine for three hours; Alexander Sichkaur for one

hour; and Vincento Montegan for seven hours. 

9. Plaintiff’s request to depose additional witnesses beyond the ten allowed under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 30 was denied without prejudice as to Pilar Molyneux, Francis Hogan, Diane

Guariglia, and the person most knowledgeable about financial documents in defendant’s Paris

office. However, defendants were ordered to provide to plaintiff a certification regarding the

methods used to respond to discovery requests in the Paris office, and that all responsive

documents had been produced from that office. Further, the court allowed plaintiff one hour to

depose the person most knowledgeable about the records produced pursuant to a subpoena

served on Wilson Travel. 

10. The court denied plaintiff’s request for sanctions, but ordered that the reasonable

costs incurred for reconvening the depositions in New York, including the airplane ticket, hotel,

and meals, were taxed to defendants.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 24, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02818-MCE -EFB Document 181 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 4