Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01674/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01674-0/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACORN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

WEDBUSH MORGAN SECURITIES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01674 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

The Court has received the parties’ joint letter brief outlining their discovery dispute

regarding Wedbush Morgan Securities (“Wedbush”)’s First Request for Production of

Documents and Things which calls for the production of “recordings of all communications

between Paul Seidenwar [an Acorn employee] and Max Safdie [a Wedbush employee and a

Defendant herein].” Acorn objected to Wedbush’s request on the grounds that it “should not be

required to disclose the existence or contents of any such recordings until Max Safdie has been

deposed.” Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court has determined that a hearing on

this dispute is unnecessary.

The Court is persuaded that delaying discovery of the existence or contents of any

recordings is necessary to “prevent the defendant or its witnesses from tailoring their testimony

to conform with their prior recorded statements.” See Poppo v. Aon Risk Services, Inc., 2000

WL 1800746, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. December 6, 2000); see also Torres-Paulett v. Tradition

Mariner, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 487, 488-89 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding that if defendant were required

to produce plaintiff’s recorded statement prior to plaintiff’s deposition, defendant would be 

Case 3:06-cv-01674-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

deprived of plaintiff’s unrefreshed recollection of the events that gave rise to the cause of

action). 

The Court further finds that Wedbush’s concerns about receiving the information prior

to the deposition can be accommodated by permitting Wedbush to re-examine Mr. Safdie after

the conclusion of the initial pre-disclosure deposition. See Sherrell Perfumes, Inc. v. Revlon,

Inc., 77 F.R.D. 705, 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (fairness concerns remedied by permitting defendants

the right to depose plaintiff again after defendants obtained access to the tapes); see also

Atlantic Sounding Co v. Sullivan, 2004 WL 1737933, at * 1 (E.D. La. July 30, 2004) (court

permitted resumption of deposition after reasonable break to allow counsel to review the

previously-undisclosed statement and pursue further examination of witness). 

Therefore, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection and orders that the disputed

production be made only after an initial deposition of Mr. Safdie. In the interest of fairness, the

Court finds that Mr. Safdie must be made available on another day for a second full deposition

after the disclosure of the requested information. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01674-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2