Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07340/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07340-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARINO MAGANALLEZ & MARY

MAGANALLEZ,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HILLTOP LENDING CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07340 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Via numerous letter briefs, the parties seek resolution of a variety of discovery-related disputes.

The Court rules as follows.

This case centers on allegations that defendants misled plaintiffs into placing an economically

burdensome mortgage on their home. On April 25, 2007, the Court issued an order granting in part

defendants’ motion to dismiss. At a subsequent case management conference, the Court ordered

plaintiffs to file their first amended complaint by June 15, 2007, and ordered the parties to schedule the

depositions of defendants Lisa Kaur and Hilltop Lending for the week of May 28 or June 4, 2007. On

June 4, 2007, plaintiffs filed the first of five letter briefs at issue. 

Plaintiffs seek Court intervention on four issues. First, plaintiffs seek an extension of the date

by which they must file their first amended complaint. Plaintiffs request an extension because they have

yet to complete depositions of the defendants. It appears that the parties have only been able to

complete a half-day of deposition of one of the defendants, Thanh Ngoc Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen appeared

in his individual capacity and as the corporate representative of defendant Hilltop Lending. The parties

are apparently struggling to find a mutually convenient date on which to complete his deposition.

Case 3:06-cv-07340-SI Document 44 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Deposition for another named defendant, Lisa Kaur, has not been scheduled because defense counsel

is unable to locate her. In light of these circumstances, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs request. Plaintiffs

must file their first amended complaint no later than one week after completion of the Nguyen

deposition, or July 6, 2007, whichever comes first. 

The second issue involves plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production of documents. Plaintiffs

argue that defendants have not adequately responded. Defendants contend that they provided responsive

documents at the June 13 deposition of Mr. Nguyen, and are awaiting further meet and confer efforts

from plaintiffs to determine what categories of documents are still at issue. The Court ORDERS the

parties to further meet and confer regarding the first set of requests for production of documents. If the

parties are unable to resolve their disputes, plaintiffs may bring a motion to compel, in accordance with

Civil Local Rule 37-2. 

The third issue is whether plaintiffs must respond to interrogatories and document requests

propounded by defendant Lisa Kaur. Plaintiffs contend that because Kaur has not made herself

available for deposition, and in fact, her whereabouts are unknown, plaintiff should not be required to

respond to discovery propounded by Kaur. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs need not respond to any

discovery propounded by defendant Kaur unless and until Kaur begins to participate in the discovery

process.

The final issue is whether plaintiffs must submit to deposition before Kaur does. Because there

are other defendants, namely Nguyen and Hilltop Lending, that are actively engaged in the discovery

process, the Court must DENY plaintiffs’ request to postpone their depositions. 

As a final note, the Court reminds the parties that it is their obligation to fully participate in the

discovery process, to facilitate the free flow of relevant information and evidence, and to make sincere

efforts to resolve their discovery-related disputes without court intervention.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07340-SI Document 44 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 3:06-cv-07340-SI Document 44 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3