Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02540/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02540-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 7:6(b) Federal Commodity Exchange Regulation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GILBERT PHILIP CASTILLO, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C06-2540 TEH 

ORDER CLARIFYING

DISCOVERY

RESPONSIBILITIES

This case is set to begin trial on June 17, 2008, and the Court-ordered discovery

cut-off date is March 3, 2008. On July 30, 2007, the Court ordered Defendant Gilbert

Castillo, Jr. to begin discovery no later than August 31, 2007. However, it appears that

Castillo may not have been diligent in pursuing discovery, and he certainly has not been

diligent in pursuing resolution of discovery disputes before the assigned magistrate judge. 

Although Castillo has admitted on the record that he is receiving some legal

assistance, the Court nonetheless wishes to remind Castillo that a “discovery cut-off date” is

the last date on which he can conduct discovery. The Court further again reminds Castillo

that, if he has not already done so, he may obtain a “Handbook for Litigants Without a

Lawyer” from the Clerk’s office, located on the 16th floor of 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, CA.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are given a certain amount of time

to respond to discovery. To be clear, all discovery that Castillo seeks from Plaintiff must be

requested in time for Plaintiff to be able to respond prior to March 3, 2008. Discovery will

not be timely, and therefore will not be permitted, if Castillo waits until March 3 or shortly

before to seek discovery from Plaintiff.

Case 3:06-cv-02540-TEH Document 107 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Thus, the Court suggests that Castillo request any additional discovery – and comply

with Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman’s procedures for resolving any remaining

discovery disputes, including Castillo’s contention that Plaintiff has failed to respond

adequately to requests already served by Castillo on Plaintiff – as soon as possible. Lack of

diligence in pursuing discovery, including timely resolution of discovery disputes, does not

constitute good cause for continuing the trial date.

All of the above, of course, applies equally to Plaintiff United States Commodity

Futures Trading Commission. The Court directs this order primarily to Castillo because it

presumes that counsel for Plaintiff understands the nature of discovery and the meaning of a

discovery cut-off date, and also because Plaintiff has informed the Court and Castillo on

numerous occasions that it already has all or nearly all of the information it needs to

prosecute this case based on its pre-filing investigation and depositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/09/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-02540-TEH Document 107 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 2