Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02455/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02455-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

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

STEVE THIEME,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANE M. COBB, et al.,

Defendants.

CYNTHIA CHENAULT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANE M. COBB, et al.,

 Defendants.

LEWIS HAYNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANE E. COBB, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03827-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF 

DEFENDANT PAUL SLOANE DAVIS

Case No. 13-cv-03828-MEJ

Case No. 15-cv-02455-MEJ

The Plaintiffs in these three related cases, Steve Thieme, Cynthia Chenault, and Lewis 

Haynes, have each filed a motion for leave to take the deposition of Defendant Paul Sloane Davis, 

who is currently a prisoner at the Duluth Federal Correctional Prison in Duluth, Minnesota. Dkt. 

No. 130. No opposition has been received and the Court therefore finds this matter suitable for 

disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Plaintiffs’ cases arise out of a “bridge mortgage” business operated by Davis and 

Defendant Diane E. Cobb known as D.M. Financial. Through D.M. Financial, Plaintiffs made 

Case 3:15-cv-02455-MEJ Document 38 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

investments in short term, high interest bridge loans between the years 2007 and 2012. Plaintiffs 

allege their investments were stolen by Cobb and Davis, whose fraudulent activities were exposed 

after D.M. Financial’s investment scheme collapsed in mid-2012. Both Cobb and Davis pled 

guilty to charges of wire fraud, identify theft, and fraud, and are now incarcerated. During this 

time, Cobb was also an employee of Defendant VanDyk Mortgage Corporation (“VanDyk”, and 

Plaintiffs also bring allegations against VanDyk based on its alleged negligent conduct in hiring 

and supervising Cobb. Plaintiffs have taken the deposition of Cobb and now seek to depose Davis 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B).

The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only with leave of court and 

consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and (2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). “The 

court should grant leave to depose an incarcerated witness unless the objecting party shows that: 

(1) the deposition would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; (2) the party seeking the 

deposition has had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or 

expense of the deposition outweighs its likely benefit.” Williams ex rel. Williams v. Greenlee, 210 

F.R.D. 577, 579 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2); Christy v. Penn. Turnpike 

Comm’n, 160 F.R.D. 51, 53 (E.D. Pa. 1995)).

Plaintiffs have set forth good cause to permit Davis’s deposition. Specifically, Plaintiffs’

counsel has provided a declaration attesting that Davis’s prison term is for at least 36 months and 

he is in possession of information that is potentially relevant to this case, including (1) his 

relationship with D.M. Financial and Cobb; (2) the inducements to invest made to Plaintiffs and 

others; (3) the relationship between Cobb and VanDyk; (4) the nature of the relationship between 

D.M. Financial and VanDyk; (5) the office-sharing arrangements by and with VanDyk, Cobb, 

D.M. Financial, and Davis; (6) payments to Davis by Cobb; and (7) the scope and nature of D.M. 

Financial’s business before and after VanDyke hired Cobb. Thus, under Rule 30(a)(2), Plaintiffs

have a right to depose Davis in order to gather information that is central to their cases. Further, 

courts generally grant leave for such depositions freely, as long as the deposition can be conducted 

without undue imposition on prison authorities. El Camino Res., Ltd. v. Huntington Nat. Bank, 

2009 WL 1228680, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2009). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Case 3:15-cv-02455-MEJ Document 38 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs’ motions.

Officials at the prison where Davis is incarcerated shall allow for Plaintiffs to depose him 

at dates and times that are mutually convenient for the parties and the prison, but no later than 

May 27, 2016. The prison shall provide appropriate security personnel and a reasonable space for 

the deposition, allowing room for the presence of the parties’ counsel, a stenographer or court 

reporter, Davis, and the security personnel. See, e.g., Edward/Ellis v. New United Motors Mfg.

Inc., 2008 WL 4712602, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02455-MEJ Document 38 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 3