Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01299/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01299-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

*E-filed 9/30/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YU-PING CHENG, TOW-MING SIOW, 

ALAN LIU, WILLIAM CHAN, PAUL 

BEACH, ERIC CHEN and PAULA CHEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INFOLOAN, INC. VERTIMAX 

VENTURES, INC., JOHN CHEN and 

JOSEPH CHEN,

Defendants.

 /

INFOLOAN, INC. VERTIMAX 

VENTURES, INC., JOHN CHEN and 

JOSEPH CHEN,

Cross-Complainants,

v.

YU-PING CHENG, TOW-MING SIOW, 

ALAN LIU, WILLIAM CHAN, PAUL 

BEACH, ERIC CHEN and PAULA CHEN,

Cross-Defendants.

 /

Case No. C03-01299 JW

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES'

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE

THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO COMPEL

On September 27, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation purporting to continue the October 4,

2005 hearing on defendant's motion to compel until October 25, 2005. The court rejects the parties'

stipulation.

Case 5:03-cv-01299-JW Document 104 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 4
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

1While the paper filed was titled "Declaration Re: Remaining Issues on Motion to Compel," it's veracity

was not sworn to under penalty of perjury. Moreover, the issues in this motion seemingly changed from the

time of the original filing to the time that the Reply was filed. What issues actually remain?

2

This motion to compel was filed back in March of this year. It was originally referred to a

different magistrate judge, and later transferred to this court for hearing, which, after several delays, was

set for July 26, 2005. On July 25, 2005, the day before the hearing on the motion, the parties filed a

stipulation continuing the hearing to the presently scheduled date. The stipulation stated that "[t]he

parties have recently engaged in discussion regarding the issues set forth in Defendant's motion and

believe that they may have reached resolution of many such issues." The court accepted the parties

stipulation, but ordered, on August 29, 2005, that the parties submit individual declarations no later than

September 20, 2005, identifying the issues raised by the motion that had been resolved by the meet and

confer efforts and describing those that remained for the court's determination.

On September 20, 2005, defendant's counsel, William Siamas, filed a document stating that "all

of the issues tendered by the motion to compel remain at issue."1 While this document hardly met the

requirements of the court's August 29, 2005 order, it was more than the effort made by plaintiffs, who

failed to file anything at all.

On September 21, 2005, after being contacted by the court's staff, plaintiffs' counsel, David Lin,

filed an unsworn document entitled "Opposition and Response to Defendant's . . . Motion to Compel,"

which stated:

Plaintiff's counsel has advised Defense counsel of his clients' intent and willingness to

address the alleged additional deficiencies pertaining to the supplemental responses

provided such that it is fully expected that all remaining discovery issues pertinent to

these responses will have been fully satisfied to the satisfaction of the parties involved. 

As such, Plaintiffs and Defendants fully expect that the present discovery dispute will be

resolved and moot such that the hearing on this Motion should be properly taken offcalendar.

The parties now stipulate, less than one week before hearing date, to continue the hearing on this

motion yet again. In this stipulation, the parties state that "[p]laintiff's [sic] counsel has experienced some

delays in obtaining necessary signatures in relation to the discovery matters at issue, and the parties are

continuing to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues prior to the hearing on the motion." At this point,

however, the court doubts the parties will ever resolve the motion on their own. 

Case 5:03-cv-01299-JW Document 104 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Moreover, Civil Local Rule 7-7(b)(1), cited by the parties in their most recent stipulation, reads

as follows: "When the parties affected by the motion have not previously stipulated to continue the

hearing date . . . the parties affected by the motion may stipulate in writing pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a)

to continue the hearing date." The plain meaning of this rule is that when parties have previously

stipulated to continue a hearing date, they may not do so again without permission of the court. Here,

the court declines to grant permission.

Accordingly, unless this motion is withdrawn, counsel are ordered to appear on October 4,

2005 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 2, for the hearing on this motion. Since the previously submitted

declarations about issues not yet resolved were so unhelpful, each counsel shall be prepared to explain in

detail exactly what remains and why.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/30/05 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-01299-JW Document 104 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Mark B. Fredkin mfredkin@mffmlaw.com, mramos@mffmlaw.com,

siamas@mffmlaw.com, gdent@mffmlaw.com, jlira@mffmlaw.com

David A. Kays rfwk@rfwk.com

David S. Lin dlinlaw@sbcglobal.net 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 9/30/05

 /s/ RNR 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:03-cv-01299-JW Document 104 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 4