Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES O. BRADLEY TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ZENITH CAPITAL LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-2239 JSW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

(Docket No. 249)

Plaintiffs have filed a discovery motion in which they raise two issues: (1) production of an

electronic database and (2) the reopening of discovery. The Court held a hearing on the motion on

November 14, 2007. This order memorializes the rulings made by the Court at the November 14

hearing.

With respect to the electronic database, the parties have agreed as follows: The Zenith

Defendants has made a second production of the database as of today. If that production does not

contain the information sought by Plaintiffs, defense counsel will either personally examine Mr.

Tasker’s (the custodian) computer system or acquire the appropriate QuickBooks software and

examine the database themselves. If the subject information is not in the database maintained by

Mr. Tasker, the Zenith Defendants shall provide a detailed declaration stating such and explaining

why the information no longer exists.

///

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 261 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

With respect to Plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery as to Tristrata and COM 2001, the

request is DENIED. As Plaintiffs concede, they must demonstrate diligence in order to establish

good cause for a change to a pretrial scheduling order. For the reasons stated on the record,

Plaintiffs have failed to establish such diligence. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 249.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 261 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 2