Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773-8/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:

(1) FOLLOWING DISCOVERY

CONFERENCE ON JUNE 25, 2008;

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. No. 103];

and

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO ALTER OR AMEND COURT’S

ORDER OF JUNE 9, 2008 [Doc. No. 105].

The Court held a status conference regarding discovery on June 25, 2008. Michael Trevelline,

Esq. and Peter Shenas, Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs. Patrick Webb, Esq. appeared for Defendants. The

parties and the Court discussed outstanding discovery issues and made several Orders on the record. 

The following memorializes the Court-issued Orders.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Completion of Brooks Deposition.

Patrick Webb confirmed that Defendants seek to compel only the seventh and final hour of

plaintiff Brooks’ deposition. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

Defendants shall finish taking Brooks’ deposition, in or around the Washington, D.C. area, during the

week of July 21, 2008. The originals of the documents that Michael Trevelline sent, or will

immediately send, to Peter Shenas’ office, shall be reviewed and/or copied by Defendants no later than

July 3, 2008. The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 111 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Order of June 9, 2008.

The Court reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider its prior Order regarding extending the

discovery period to allow for service of a subpoena and the taking of the deposition of Naomi Craft. For

good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion to alter or amend the June 9 Order. Plaintiffs shall

have until July 25, 2008 to serve Naomi Craft with a deposition subpoena. If she is successfully served

within this time frame, Plaintiffs may then schedule and take her deposition.

Depositions of Third Party Witnesses on the East Coast.

The parties are trying to finalize the schedule for the taking of approximately five third-party

witness depositions on the East Coast during the week of July 21, 2008. The parties shall file, by July

17, 2008, a confirmation letter between counsel that confirms the deponent’s name and the date, time

and location for each deposition.

Order re: Discovery Motions and Objections.

The Court admonished the parties for their behavior regarding discovery disputes. The Court

ORDERS that no further discovery motions shall be filed without prior Court approval. Further, to the

extent any of the discovery issues pending before Judge Moskowitz in the form of Rule 72(a) objections

have been resolved, the parties shall withdraw those objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 111 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 2