Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05080/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05080-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05080-JST 

ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT 

MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG TO 

RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

OF DOCUMENTS

Re: ECF No. 73

Now before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter brief regarding defendant 

Michael B. Rothenberg’s failure to provide responses to plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s (“SEC”) First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of

Interrogatories. ECF No. 73. Responses to these discovery requests were due February 19, 2019, 

but none have been provided to date. Id. at 2. The SEC asks the Court to order Rothenberg to 

serve responses and to find that any objections to the discovery requests have been waived. Id. at 

4. Rothenberg does not dispute that he is required to respond to these requests, but asks that the 

Court not find a waiver of his right to object. Id. at 5-6. He states that “[t]he April 10 meet and 

confer was the first time I was informed that I could not object to any of the SEC’s discovery 

requests, regardless of how unjust or inappropriate they may be and are.” Id. at 5.

The Court now ORDERS Rothenberg to serve responses by May 16, 2019. In setting this 

compliance date, the Court notes that Rothenberg stated that he did “not object to the court giving 

[him] a hard deadline of April 26, 2019 if it must, although even another one or two weeks would 

likely make a meaningful difference to [him].” Id. at 5-6. The Court also orders that Rothenberg 

has WAIVED any right to object to these discovery requests. “It is well established that a failure 

to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.” 

Case 3:18-cv-05080-JST Document 79 Filed 05/09/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). The fact that 

Rothenberg represents himself does not excuse his failure to provide timely responses. King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 

procedure that govern other litigants.”), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 

693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05080-JST Document 79 Filed 05/09/19 Page 2 of 2