Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05795/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05795-11/pdf.json

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed February 17, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

EVERFLOW TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MILLENNIUM ELECTRONICS, INC.; 

LOROCO SALES INCORPORATED; 

JAMEL ENTERPRISES; PERALTA 

INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; JAMES E. 

LORO; MELVA LORO; and NADENE 

LORO SNAPP; 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C07-05795 JF (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[Re: Docket No. 193] 

Plaintiff Everflow Technology Corporation (“Everflow”) sold and delivered computer fans 

to defendant Millennium Electronics, Inc. (“MEI”). After MEI allegedly failed to pay for the fans, 

Everflow sued for breach of contract. Everflow later amended its complaint to include pro se

defendants James and Melva Loro, MEI’s principals, alleging that the Loros fraudulently transferred 

approximately $1.3 million from MEI to themselves personally and to the accounts of other entities 

they operate, and also alleging that the Loros are not truly separate from these entities. 

Everflow now moves to compel defendant James Loro to answer questions concerning 

transfers of money that he refused to answer at his deposition on privacy grounds and to produce 

documents at the deposition he has not yet produced. Plaintiff also moves for an additional period 

of time to complete Loro’s deposition beyond the seven-hour limit allowed by the Federal Rules. 

Case 5:07-cv-05795-LHK Document 201 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

Loro opposes the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds the matter suitable for 

determination without oral argument, and the March 2, 2010 hearing is vacated. 

Everflow conducted Loro’s deposition on June 18, 2009. During this deposition, Loro 

refused to answer a number of questions concerning transactions between the Loros, JDC Partners 

LLC (“JDC”), and JDC’s principal, Jose Alvarez. Everflow asserts that there were numerous large 

transfers of money between the Loros and JDC, who apparently was investing in real estate on the 

Loros’ behalf. Yet Loro objected to every question concerning these transactions on grounds that 

they asked for “private financial information” in violation of California law. (Loro Dep. 217–35.) 

This court has considered Loro’s assertions of privacy on two prior occasions and held in 

both instances that personal financial information is relevant and discoverable under the 

circumstances of this case. (See Docket Nos. 78, 176.) The court does not find Loro’s arguments to 

the contrary to be any more compelling in this third round.1 Everflow avers that questions and 

documents concerning these transactions may reveal evidence of alter ego or that the Loros 

fraudulently transferred MEI money. A review of the questions and requests at issue in this motion 

confirms that they are appropriate in this case. As a result, Loro’s asserted privacy interests—once 

again—fail to overcome Everflow’s right to discover relevant facts concerning its claims. 

Accordingly, Everflow’s motion is GRANTED as follows: within thirty days, Loro shall 

make himself available for an additional four hours to answer Everflow’s questions, without 

objection on privacy grounds, concerning transfers between the Loros, JDC, and Alvarez, as well as 

other questions relating to where the Loros may have distributed MEI money. At this deposition, 

Loro shall also produce all responsive documents for Request Nos. 24–32 as requested in 

Everflow’s April 17, 2009 deposition notice, to the extent that he has not already done so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

 Loro argues that the court should deny the motion outright because, he says, plaintiff failed to 

properly meet and confer. The court is unpersuaded that plaintiff’s efforts were insufficient, 

especially considering Loro’s seemingly unwavering position that he does not have to disclose 

personal financial information in this case. 

Case 5:07-cv-05795-LHK Document 201 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C 07-05795 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

James Loro j4ldef@yahoo.com 

Mark M Fang, Esq MFang@MarkFangAPC.com, Bshort@MarkFangAPC.com 

Melva Loro j4ldef@yahoo.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:07-cv-05795-LHK Document 201 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3