Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02880/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02880-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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

1 09cv2880 JLS (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MULTIBANK 2009-1 RES-ADC

VENTURE, LLC, as Receiver of 1st

CENTENNIAL BANK, in receivership,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY HOUSING

CORPORATION, a California nonprofit

benefit corporation; DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2880 JLS (NLS)

ORDER RE: 

(1) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY

DEADLINE;

(2) MOTION TO STAY OR QUASH

DEPOSITIONS OR FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER;

(3) MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

AND FOR ORDER SHORTENING

TIME 

[Doc. Nos. 35, 37 & 38.]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venture LLC and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(“FDIC”) as Receiver of 1st Centennial Bank bring this action for judicial foreclosure of a $4,117,000

note secured by a deed of trust on a low income housing project. Defendant SDCHC cross-claimed

against the FDIC claiming that the parties entered into an enforceable contract in March 2009 to sell the

note and reconvey the deed of trust for $1,519,000. The FDIC denies there was ever an enforceable

agreement between the parties. Further, the FDIC claims that the court lacks jurisdiction over the crossclaim because SDCHC failed to avail itself of the requisite claims procedure provided by the FDIC. 

Case 3:09-cv-02880-JLS-NLS Document 40 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 3
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 09cv2880 JLS (NLS)

On March 22, 2010 the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a fact discovery deadline of

August 6, 2010. [Doc. No. 23] The Court subsequently extended this deadline to September 20, 2010. 

[Doc. No. 34.] Currently before the Court is Defendant SDCHC’s motion to extend fact discovery by 30

additional days. [Doc. No. 35.] The FDIC filed an Opposition. [Doc. No. 36.] 

Also before the Court is FDIC’s motion to stay or quash depositions of Ryan Moore and Sean

Johnson, employees of the FDIC contractor who allegedly entered the reconveyance contract with

SDCHC, and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the FDIC as Receiver. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that

the Court issue a Protective Order continuing the date of the FDIC deposition and limiting the scope of

the deposition inquiry.

II. DISCUSSION 

The Court has previously extended the discovery cutoff in this case and does not find good cause

to grant an additional extension. The deposition notices while served on the eve of discovery cutoff and

with nearly unreasonable notice (only six business days for Sean Johnson and Ryan Moore) and nine

business days for the FDIC were nevertheless noticed before the fact discovery deadline. The Court

finds that the depositions of Sean Johnson and Ryan Moore, fact witnesses known to both parties for

some time, should go forward tomorrow as noticed. However, the subject areas noticed for the FDIC’s

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition are so overly broad that the Court finds good cause to stay this deposition and

issue a protective order such that the FDIC deposition shall not go forward until further order of the

court. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to limit the subject areas for the FDIC deposition

and agree on a reasonable date for the FDIC deposition. The parties shall submit a joint statement to the

court on the results of their meet and confer as ordered below.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following:

(1) Defendant’s motion for an extension of the fact discovery cutoff is DENIED;

(2) Plaintiff’s motion to stay or quash the depositions of Sean Johnson and Ryan Moore to take

place on September 17, 2010, is DENIED;

(3) Plaintiff’s motion to stay the deposition of FDIC as Receiver is GRANTED;

(4) Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order with regard to the deposition of FDIC as Receiver is

Case 3:09-cv-02880-JLS-NLS Document 40 Filed 09/16/10 Page 2 of 3
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 09cv2880 JLS (NLS)

GRANTED until further order of the court.

Regarding the FDIC deposition, the parties are to meet and confer on or before Wednesday

September 22, 2010 and submit to this Court a joint statement on or before Friday, September 24, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2010

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

 

Case 3:09-cv-02880-JLS-NLS Document 40 Filed 09/16/10 Page 3 of 3