Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00417/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00417-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

C-05-00417 RMW

*E-FILED - 4/6/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re KEITH HENSON,

Debtor.

 

Religious Technology Center,

 Plaintiff,

v.

V. Arel Lucas et al,.

 Defendants. 

Case No.: C-05-00417 RMW

Bankruptcy Case No: 98-51326 ASW-7

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO APPEAL

Pending before this court is the Amended Motion of Creditor Religious Technology Center

("RTC") for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition. The order

was made by the bankruptcy court on or about November 9, 2004(signed January 18, 2005) and

denied RTC's motion to compel Arel Lucas's deposition. The bankruptcy court ruled that RTC

would first have to try and accomplish its discovery needs by interrogatories. (E.R. 31-33). 

The district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) to "grant leave to hear appeals

from interlocutory orders." In re Ryther, 799 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 158(a),

however, 

does not indicate the standard a district court should use in determining whether to

grant leave to appeal. Nonetheless, the vast majority of district courts faced with the

problem have adopted the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for interlocutory

appeals from district court orders. This standard consists of three elements: (1) a

controlling issue of law must be involved; (2) the question must be one where there is

substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal must

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

Case 5:05-cv-00417-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

C-05-00417 RMW 2

Matter of Ichinose, 946 F.2d 1169, 1177 (5th Cir. 1991). The standards are not met here. 

The bankruptcy court denied the motion to compel but did not rule out a later deposition. 

"You can first do interrogatories and then if you need a deposition, you'll move to compel." Tr.

11/9/04 at 33:1-3. The court appears to have balanced what it considered a marginal need for a

deposition against the expense involved for the individual defendant. 

RTC has not shown that it will necessarily suffer prejudice by the bankruptcy court's order. 

RTC may get answers to interrogatories that support its position. It may obtain responses that show

interrogatories are not satisfactory and a deposition is needed. Leave to appeal at this time and

before RTC has undertaken the discovery (50 interrogatories) allowed by the bankruptcy court and

before a final decision on whether a deposition will be compelled, would only add a step to the

litigation. The bankruptcy court has substantial discretion on how it controls discovery. Leave

under the current circumstances of this case would unnecessarily interfere with the bankruptcy

court's discovery decisions and would not advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 

The court hereby exercises its discretion and denies the Motion for Leave to Appeal. The

Clerk may close the above referenced district court file.

DATED: 3/31/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00417-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

C-05-00417 RMW 3

Copy of Order E-Filed to:

Elaine M. Seid

Helena K. Kobrin

Wayne A. Silver

Copy of Order Mailed to:

Samuel D. Rosen

Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP 

75 East 55th Street 

New York, NY 10022-3206 

Judith S. Suelzle

Law Offices of Judith S. Suelzle 

P.O. Box 3984 

Los Altos, CA 94024-0984 

USBC Manager-San Jose

US Bankruptcy Court 

280 South First Street 

Room 3035 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Arthur S. Weissbrodt

U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

280 South First Street 

Room 3035 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Office of the U.S. Trustee/SJ

U.S. Federal Bld. 

280 S 1st St. #268 

San Jose, CA 95113-3004 

Dated: 4/6/06 /s/ JG 

Chamber of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-00417-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3