Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02236/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02236-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 05cv2236

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS,

INC.,

Civil No. 05cv2236-W (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

AS TO DEFENDANT LOPEZ 

v.

NOVEON SYSTEMS, INC.; MADELINE

LOPEZ; and JAMES ALBERT BEARS,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Enterprise Technology Holdings’ (“ETH”) motion to

compel discovery responses and for sanctions against Defendant Madeline Lopez (“Lopez”), in

pro se. The parties submitted letter briefs in support of their positions directly to chambers, and

the Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral

argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). The Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

In December, 2005, ETH filed a complaint against Noveon Systems Inc., a Florida

corporation, for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Lopez was the president and

owner of Noveon. Her husband, Francis Lopez, was in charge of operations. 

On February 28, 2007, ETH filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 63],

alleging that Lopez is the sole shareholder, sole officer, director and person in control of Noveon,

and is the alter ego of Noveon, and it therefore liable for all damages resulting from Noveon’s

actions.

Case 3:05-cv-02236-MMA-CAB Document 134 Filed 06/02/08 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

1Plaintiff moved to compel production on 23 requests out of 89 propounded requests.

2Plaintiff moved to compel on 11 of the 25 interrogatory responses. The motion does not address

the responses to the Requests for Admission. 

2 05cv2236

On August 15, 2007, a default judgment was entered against Noveon and ETH was

awarded $733,478.01 in damages, fees and costs, to be paid by Noveon for all causes of action.

[Doc. No.108.] Noveon apparently has not satisfied the judgment, so ETH is pursuing its alter ego

claim against Lopez to seek satisfaction of the judgment from her personally. The only allegation

against Lopez is one of alter ego, such that she can be held personally liable for the damages

entered against Noveon. FAC at ¶¶ 78, 86, 91, 139 and 171. The discovery needed to litigate the

alter ego claim is a focused inquiry and does not require broad inquiry into the underlying issues

resolved by the default against Noveon. 

On January 18, 2008, ETH served a Request for Production of Documents,

Interrogatories and Requests for Admission on Lopez. On February 19, 2008, Lopez responded to

the Interrogatories and the Requests for Admission. On March 3, 2008, Lopez provided a written

response to the document request and produced responsive documents in her possession.

ETH communicated to Lopez that is was not satisfied with the responses and requested

supplemental responses. Lopez provided a supplemental document production in response. To

many discovery requests, however, she responded she has no responsive documents or knowledge.

ETH brought this motion to compel arguing that the Defendant refused to provide

documents responsive to the majority of ETH’s Requests for Production1 and provided evasive and

incomplete responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories.2 

With regard to the document requests, Defendant, in her opposition, contends she

provided the responsive documents in her possession, custody and control. There are many

requests to which she states she has no responsive documents. Despite the Plaintiff’s speculation

and conjecture that this is unlikely and false, the Court accepts the Defendant’s representation that

she made a good faith effort to locate and produce the responsive documents and has done so. 

Although Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this response, it has offered no tangible evidence that it is

Case 3:05-cv-02236-MMA-CAB Document 134 Filed 06/02/08 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 05cv2236

untrue. Moreover, Requests for Production Nos. 28-38, regarding communications between

Defendant, Noveon and various other individuals and Noveon customers are so overbroad with

respect to the alter ego claim asserted against Lopez, they are harassing. No further responses are

required of the Defendant. 

As for the Interrogatories, Lopez has verified her responses and represented to the Court

that she has no further information. Her responses are deemed complete and no further response is

required of the Defendant, particularly given the marginal relevance a number of the

Interrogatories have to the alter ego claim asserted. The Plaintiff has served the 25 Interrogatories

and 25 Requests for Admission allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s

Local Rules. Plaintiff may propound no further Interrogatories or Requests for Admission on this

Defendant without leave of court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. 

DATED: June 2, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02236-MMA-CAB Document 134 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 3