Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE A. BROOKS; BROOKS

INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTSENBOCKER ADVANCED

DEVELOPMENTS, INC.; GREGG A.

MOTSENBOCKER; SKIP A.

MOTSENBOCKER,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO

EXTEND DATES IN THE

SCHEDULING ORDER [Doc. No. 44]

***

FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING

ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY

AND OTHER PRETRIAL

PROCEEDINGS

George Brooks and Brooks Industries, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed this ex parte application to extend

dates in the scheduling order. Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc. (MAD), Gregg

Motsenbocker and Skip Motsenbocker (collectively, Defendants) have not filed an opposition. Even

though this Court finds that Plaintiffs grossly misrepresent the procedural history of this case and

mischaracterize the Court’s actions, it still GRANTS in part the ex parte application. The Court also

ADMONISHES Plaintiffs that any future filings must contain supported facts that accurately

characterize the parties’ and the Court’s actions.

Plaintiffs’ Misrepresentations.

Plaintiffs ask this Court to modify the scheduling order by continuing all dates in it for 90 days. 

In support, they say hardly any documents have been produced even though discovery has been open for

around six months. Plaintiffs’ counsel cites many scheduling issues in his own calendar. Finally,

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 45 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

Plaintiffs also try to blame the Court–twice– for the delay in receiving discovery documents:

Plaintiffs promptly submitted requests for production and issued

subpoenas and requested a protective order in August and September. The

Court did not issue a protective order until six months later and did not

order Defendants to respond to August requests for production until 1

February 2008–almost seven months after requested!

Pls.’ Application, p.2, ll.11-17; p.11, ll.7-12.

Plaintiffs grossly misrepresent the Court’s actions. The Court now clarifies the record.

On June 27, 2007, the Court filed an order setting Rule 26 compliance. [Doc. No. 9.] Per that

order, the parties were to make initial disclosures by July 30, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion before District Judge Moskowitz for leave to file a

first amended complaint. [Doc. No. 11.] The hearing date for that motion was September 14, 2007. On

July 23, Judge Moskowitz referred Plaintiffs’ motion to the undersigned for decision. This Court moved

up the hearing date for Plaintiffs’ motion to September 6. [Doc. No. 16.] 

Meanwhile, on August 10, 2007, this Court issued a scheduling order regulating discovery and

other pretrial proceedings. [Doc. No. 19.] Then, on the same day as the hearing–September 6, 2007–this

Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and ordered

Plaintiffs to file their amended complaint forthwith. [Doc. No. 24.] But Plaintiffs never filed one. This

Court then had to issue a second order reminding Plaintiffs to file the first amended complaint that they

had asked for, and ordered them to do it by October 1. [Doc. No. 25.] Plaintiffs filed it September 25.

[Doc. No. 27.]

Not until September 26, 2007–almost two months after initial disclosures were due–did Plaintiffs

file a motion to compel Defendants to make initial disclosures and requested that the Court enter a

protective order. [Doc. No. 29.] This Court set the hearing date for that motion on October 24–exactly

28 days after it was filed–and the minimum time required for motion hearings under the local rules. 

Defendants, in the meantime, filed an answer to the first amended complaint on October 15.

[Doc. No. 31.]

Five days after the hearing, this Court issued an order largely denying Plaintiffs’ motion to

compel as premature and denying without prejudice the motion for protective order. [Doc. No. 35.] The

Court found that Defendants in fact provided initial disclosures that cover the four requirements of Rule

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 45 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

26(a)(1), and ordered Defendants to supplement their disclosures as they became aware of any other

information. While Plaintiffs found these disclosures to be “incomplete,” the Court noted that

Defendants would be limited to using only the witnesses and exhibits they identified in their initial

disclosures and supplements thereto. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order as

premature, because at that point in time, Defendants had not refused to answer any discovery requests,

so a dispute had not yet arisen. The Court strongly encouraged the parties to file any future request for a

protective order as a stipulated joint motion.

On November 28, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to discovery. [Doc. No.

36.] The Court set the matter for hearing on December 27, just 29 days later. Plaintiffs identified

requests for production (RFPs) they sought to compel responses to, and those RFPs were identical to

information sought in the initial disclosures. They also sought to compel the disclosure of information

that they never even asked Defendants for through discovery. On January 8, 2008, the Court denied the

requests in the RFPs, because it had already ruled on information that was or should have been provided

in the initial disclosures, and could not compel disclosure of information that was never sought in

discovery. [Doc. No. 42.] The Court, however, granted the request to compel responses to certain

interrogatories. And because Defendants’ responses to those interrogatories could require production of

confidential information, the Court granted the motion for a protective order, as it was finally ripe for

decision. The Court allowed the parties until January 22, 2008 to submit a joint proposed protective

order, and signed the proposed protective order the same day. [Doc. No. 43.]

Based on the Court’s immediate accommodation of Plaintiffs’ motions and prompt issuing of

orders, the Court does not appreciate Plaintiffs’ gross misrepresentation that the Court took six months

to issue a protective order and gave Defendants seven months to respond to discovery. The Court,

therefore, ADMONISHES Plaintiffs that any future filings must contain accurate and supported facts

that do not misrepresent the parties’ or the Court’s actions.

Revised Scheduling Order.

Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ misrepresentations, Plaintiffs have shown good cause to continue the

dates in the scheduling order by 60 days, and not the 90 days requested. The Court, therefore,

ORDERS that the scheduling order be revised to include these new deadlines:

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 45 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

! Designation of Expert Witnesses February 15, 2008

! Date for Exchanging Rebuttal Witnesses February 29, 2008

! Disclosure Under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) March 14, 2008

! Supplement disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(c) April 14, 2008

! Complete all discovery including experts May 30, 2008

! File all pretrial motions June 30, 2008

! Conduct Mandatory Settlement Conference September 15, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

! Confidential settlement briefs due to chambers September 10, 2008

! Pretrial Disclosure Requirements October 14, 2008

! Counsel’s Meeting Under Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) October 21, 2008

! Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order due October 28, 2008

! Final Pretrial Conference with Judge Moskowitz November 4, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

All non-conflicting provisions of the Court’s August 10, 2007 scheduling order shall remain in

full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 45 Filed 02/08/08 Page 4 of 4