Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00390/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00390-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE SUNDBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARQUEE FUNDING GROUP, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

COMPLETE ADDITIONAL 

DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court upon review of the record. On March 4, 2020, 

Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard extended the fact discovery deadline in this matter 

for approximately 60 days, until May 4, 2020, for the limited purpose of permitting 

counsel for the Investor Defendants1 to take the depositions of Plaintiff Dale Sundby and 

non-party Edith Sundby, Plaintiff’s wife and signatory to the trust whose assets 

1 The Investor Defendants include Salomon Benzimra, Trustee, Stanley Kesselman, 

Trustee, Jeffrey Myers, Kathleen Myers, Andres Salsido, Trustee, Benning Management 

Group 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, Christopher Myers, Vickie McCarty, Delores 

Thompson, Kimberly Gill Rabinoff, Steven Cobin, Trustee, Susan Cobin, Trustee, Equity 

Trust Company, Custodian FBO Steven M. Cobin Traditional IRA, Todd B. Cobin, 

Trustee, Barbara A. Cobin, Trustee, and Fasack Investments, LLC.

Case 3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG Document 119 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG

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

encompass the real property that is the subject of the 2016 and 2017 loans underlying this 

litigation. ECF No. 92. See also ECF No. 13 ¶¶ 26-129; ECF No. 66. Pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Goddard’s order to be considered by 

the presiding District Judge in this matter. ECF No. 94. On April 6, 2020, the District 

Judge denied Plaintiff’s objection, permitting the order extending the discovery period to 

stand. ECF No. 114.

Because of the delay between the filing of the initial order extending discovery and 

the denial of Plaintiff’s objection, there is now insufficient time for counsel for Investor 

Defendants to properly notice Plaintiff’s deposition if the notice requests production of 

documents. See Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cty. of San Diego, No. CIV.08CV1406-

JM(CAB), 2009 WL 2044621, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2009) (“[W]hen [a Rule 30(b)(1)

notice for deposition] joins a request for the production of documents, [] the procedures 

for Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 apply and a minimum of 30 days’ notice is required.”). Moreover, 

any Rule 45 subpoena the Investor Defendants serve on non-party Edith Sundby must 

allow a reasonable time to comply and must not subject Mrs. Sundby to undue burden. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d). Particularly given that Mrs. Sundby has filed a Declaration in 

this action attesting to her “serious health conditions that require treatment in several 

locations around the country[,]” the Court finds it necessary to ensure the parties have 

sufficient time to arrange both depositions without causing undue burden. See ECF No. 

66. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, EXTENDS the fact discovery deadline by 

another 30 days, to June 3, 2020, for the limited purpose of allowing the Investor 

Defendants an opportunity to properly notice and subpoena the depositions of Plaintiff 

and Mrs. Sundby.

For the same reason of avoiding undue burden on the anticipated deponents, and in 

consideration of Mrs. Sundby’s health conditions, the Court strongly encourages counsel 

for the Investor Defendants to confer with Plaintiff to discuss taking depositions by way 

of remote videoconferencing in light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 30(b)(4); see also, e.g., Gee v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. 10-CV-01509 RS NC, 

Case 3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG Document 119 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG

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

2011 WL 5597124, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011) (“Parties routinely conduct 

depositions via videoconference, and courts encourage the same, because doing so 

minimizes travel costs and permits the jury to make credibility evaluations not available 

when a transcript is read by another.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Lipsey 

v. Walmart, Inc., No. 19 C 7681, 2020 WL 1322850, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2020)

(collecting cases regarding various responses to the current pandemic, including ample 

use of videoconferencing technology, to demonstrate the “flexibility and sensitivity by 

courts in the face of a serious public health emergency and the threat it poses to the health 

and public safety of litigants, court staff and the general public”); Sinceno v. Riverside 

Church in City of New York, No. 18-CV-2156 (LJL), 2020 WL 1302053, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 

Mar. 18, 2020) (ordering that “all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, 

videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or 

audiovisual means” in light of the President’s declaration of a national emergency due to 

the spread of the COVID-19 virus).

Plaintiff and counsel for the Investor Defendants are encouraged to confer in good 

faith regarding the method of depositions, dates, and an agreeable manner of service of 

the Rule 45 subpoena on Mrs. Sundby. As before, counsel for Defendant Marquee 

Funding Group, Inc. is not permitted to notice additional depositions pursuant to this 

Order, but may attend the depositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00390-GPC-AHG Document 119 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3