Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03609/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03609-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 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

27

28

MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

THOMAS MOORE (ALBN 4305-O78T)

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Tax Division

THOMAS NEWMAN (NYBN 4256178)

Assistant United States Attorney

1301 Clay Street, Suite 340 S

Oakland, California 94612-5217

Telephone: (510) 637-3689

Fax: (510) 637-3724

Thomas.newman2@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

M.O.R.E. PARTNERS LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs and

Counterclaim-Defendants, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants and

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

No. CV 12-3609 JST

STIPULATED REQUEST TO SET CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs Karen Rayl, Harvey Ottovich, Randy Ottovich, and M.O.R.E. LLC, through their 

counsel, and the United States, stipulate as follows:

1. At the case management conference that was held on January 28, 2015, the court set a 

discovery deadline, dispositive motion deadline, and a trial date. For the reasons set forth 

below, the parties believe the court should set a further case management conference to 

consider alternative dates in this matter.

2. The parties attended a case management conference in this case on December 3, 2014. At 

that conference the parties discussed the fact that some discovery had been stayed and that 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 96 Filed 05/12/15 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

dates needed to be set to respond to that discovery. At that hearing and because of the stayed 

discovery, the court set a further case management conference for January 28, 2015.

3. Prior to the January 28, 2015, case management conference, Defendant’s counsel prepared a 

joint statement, sent the proposed statement to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and contacted plaintiffs’ 

counsel to discuss the “stayed” discovery. Plaintiffs did not provide any summary of facts or 

their legal position in the draft report. (Dkt. No. 71). Plaintiffs’ counsel did not discuss the 

stayed discovery and noted that he was withdrawing from the case. 

4. The government noted in advance of the December 3, 2014, case management conference 

that plaintiffs were relying on a non-existent court order to advance their case. The 

government contends that Plaintiffs’ legal position and the facts that support that position are 

unknown because: (1) the complaints rely on a state court order that does not exist, and (2) 

Plaintiffs’ initial discovery response relies on the same court order. Thus, from the 

government’s perspective, Plaintiffs’ position is not revealed in their discovery, complaint, or 

documents that they have provided. Plaintiffs claim that they learned after this matter was 

filed and after the responses were served that the October 2004 Order did not references the 

properties at issue in this case. 

5. When counsel did not withdraw, the parties discussed providing the stayed discovery by a 

date certain. The parties agreed to exchange this material by April 24, 2015. The parties also 

discussed meeting and conferring relating to the earlier discovery responses because: (1) 

Plaintiffs’ responses rely on a non-existent court order and Plaintiffs did not update the 

responses in order to state their position, (2) Plaintiffs did not provide documents in response 

to the government’s document request. 

a. The meet and confer was scheduled for March 25, 2015. See Dkt. No. 83. The 

meeting did not take place because Plaintiffs’ counsel stated he could no longer meet 

at that time.

b. The parties rescheduled the meeting for March 27, 2015, and then rescheduled it

again for March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated he could not 

meet and proposed a new date. 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 96 Filed 05/12/15 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

c. The parties discussed the discovery on March 31, 2015. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to 

provide outstanding documents in the following two weeks. The updated 

interrogatories contain numerous factual issues and again assert that ownership in one 

or more of the properties at issue is based on a (non-existent) court order that 

Plaintiffs claim that they now realize does not refer to the properties at issue in this 

case. 

d. The government served additional discovery that was due on April 22, 2015. 

e. Defendant’s counsel asked to meet and confer about the updated responses after 

noting that the same (non-existent) court order is referenced and the interrogatories all 

state that ownership over one property is based on a conversation that “I was not 

privy to...” as stated in all the responses, i.e. such that no one is part of this 

conversation. 

f. On April 17, 2015, the parties discussed the discovery responses and the necessity to 

change the responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated he was unable to confer at that time 

because his car was stolen. Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that the supplemental 

document production and the original document requests that were due on April 24, 

2015, by agreement were in plaintiffs’ counsel’s car when it was stolen. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel’s car also contained other case-related documents, an expert disclosure, the 

discovery that was due by April 22, 2015, Rule 26 disclosures, the request for 

admissions, the special interrogatories, and the original document production. 

6. The government believed a December trial date was possible after receiving some responsive 

discovery. For these reasons the parties believe a case management conference should be set 

so that plaintiffs can commit to dates when they can provide documents requested in 

discovery and to support their own case. 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 96 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 4
Case No. CV 12-3609 JST 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

Respectfully submitted, 

MELINDA HAAG 

United States Attorney

 /s/

THOMAS NEWMAN

Assistant United States Attorney 

Tax Division 

 /s/

RANDALL SCHMIDT

Attorney for MORE LLC, Karen Rayl, Harvey 

Ottovich and Randy Ottovich

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the parties’ stipulation, a case management conference is set in this 

matter for May 20, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse. A 

joint case management statement with proposed deadlines is due May 15, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2015 ________________________________

THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR

U

United States District Judge 

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:12-cv-03609-JST Document 96 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 4