Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

Stipulation and Order For Discovery Responses

Pentalpha v. Reddy

STANLEY G. HILTON, BAR NO. 65990

LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY G. HILTON

2570 North First Street, Ste. 200

San Jose, CA 95131

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 1188

Pacifica, CA 94044

Tel: (415) 378-6142

Fax: (415) 474-2005

Attorney for Defendant, Damoder Reddy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL ) Case No.: C 03 5914 MMC ARB

OFFSHORE LIMITED, a Macau, PRC )

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER

) RE FURTHER DISCOVERY

RESPONSES

 vs. )

)

DAMODER REDDY, an individual; )

and DOES 1-10 inclusive, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

)

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM )

 )

The parties hereby present the following Stipulation and Order to the Court pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37(a) regarding Damoder Reddy’s responses to Pentalpha Macau

Commercial Offshore Limited’s (“Pentalpha”) First Set of Interrogatories, First Set of Requests

for Production of Documents and First Set of Requests for Admissions.

WHEREAS, Pentalpha has propounded written discovery to Damoder Reddy;

WHEREAS, Pentalpha contended that Reddy’s responses were inadequate;

WHEREAS, Pentalpha has previously granted Reddy extensions of time to respond, to

meet and confer and to provide amended responses;

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 117 Filed 06/24/05 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

Stipulation and Order For Discovery Responses

Pentalpha v. Reddy 2

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:

Pentalpha’s First Set of Interrogatories:

No. 1: Reddy will provide further response to Interrogatory No. 1, which response shall

include at least the following: an identification of each specific piece of property allegedly

converted, the specific person that allegedly converted it, the specific date and time that it was

allegedly converted, the specific value of each piece of property that you contend was converted,

and a statement of all facts supporting your contentions listed above. The amended answer must

also include the detailed factual basis for contending that Pentalpha converted any specific item

of Reddy’s property.

No. 2: Reddy will set forth all upon which he relies regarding his valuation of each

element of damages for each specific item of allegedly converted property, and a detailed

description of each document supporting his valuation.

No. 3: Reddy shall identify all persons who he alleges in his Third Amended

Counterclaim defamed him, including each individuals name, address, and position held at

Opsys or Pentalpha. For each individual so identified, Reddy shall state (1) the exact statement

made by each individual, (2) to whom the statement was said, (3) any other individuals who

heard the statement being uttered, (4) where the statement was said and (4) the date and time that

the allegedly defamatory statement was made. If Reddy contends that Pentalpha is responsible

for a statement made by an Opsys US employee or consultant, Reddy Shall state all the facts

upon which he relies for that contention.

No. 4: Reddy shall identify each alleged misrepresentation that he contends was made by

Pentalpha, and for each alleged misrepresentation include (a) the person making the statement,

(b) the specific date and time that the statement was allegedly made, (c) the exact words used,

(d) to whom the statement was allegedly made, (e) why the statement was false, (f) how Reddy

relied on the statement to his detriment, (g) all facts on which Reddy relies in contending that

Pentalpha knew that any statement was allegedly false and (h) the exact nature and amount of

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 117 Filed 06/24/05 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

Stipulation and Order For Discovery Responses

Pentalpha v. Reddy 3

damages that he attributes to the alleged misrepresentation.

No. 5: Reddy shall identify each act by Pentalpha that he contends caused emotional

distress as alleged in the Fifth Cause of Action in his Third Amended Counterclaim, including

without limitation, (a) who allegedly performed the act, (b) all witnesses to the act, (c)

identification of all documents supporting his claim of emotional distress, (d) the amount and

nature of damages that he attributes to each act allegedly done by Pentalpha. Reddy shall also

state all facts upon which Reddy relies in contending that he suffered emotional distress

damages, identify the categories of documents supporting his contention, and any witnesses with

knowledge of the nature and extent of his alleged emotional distress damages.

No. 9: Reddy shall provide specific and detailed facts regarding what he contends is the

corporate relationship between Opsys US’s parent company and Pentalpha.

Reddy shall provide all amended and supplemental interrogatory responses by 5:00 PM

on Friday, June 24, 2005 by fax. 

First Set of Document Requests:

Reddy shall review each of the document requests and shall make a diligent and thorough

search of those documents in his possession, custody and/or control for all documents responsive

to the Requests and shall produce all such documents to Pentalpha’s counsel on or before June

24, 2005 at 224 Birmingham Drive, Suite 1A4, Cardiff, CA. Without limiting the foregoing, at a

minimum, Reddy shall produce all documents supporting his claims against Pentalpha, including

his conversion claim, all documents showing his lending money to Opsys US and receiving

repayment by Opsys US, all support that Reddy has that would show that he had contacts with

any bona fide investor on behalf of Opsys US, and all documents evidencing his damages,

including emotional distress.

First Set of Requests for Admission:

Reddy and his counsel shall review each of the Requests for Admission and shall

determine in good faith and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) whether each Request for

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 117 Filed 06/24/05 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

Stipulation and Order For Discovery Responses

Pentalpha v. Reddy 4

Admission should be admitted or denied.

Reddy shall provide all amended Admissions by 5:00 PM on Friday, June 24, 2005 by

fax.

Respectfully Submitted,

FLYNN& STILLMAN

Dated: June 20, 2005 By: 

Philip H. Stillman, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and counter-defendant

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED

LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY HILTON

/s/ Stanley G. Hilton

Dated: June 20, 2005 By:______________________________ Stanley G. Hilton, Esq.

Attorneys for defendant and counterclaimant,

DAMODER REDDY

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________, 2005 _______________________________________ Hon. Maxine M. Chesney June 24 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 117 Filed 06/24/05 Page 4 of 4