Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00773-0/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) DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL; 

(2) DENYING REQUEST TO IMPOSE

SANCTIONS; and 

(3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE

ORDER

[Doc. No. 29]

George Brooks and Brooks Industries, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a motion to compel

Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc. (“MAD”), Gregg Motsenbocker and Skip Motsenbocker

(collectively, “Defendants”) to provide initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(1) and this Court’s June 27, 2007 Order setting Rule 26 compliance deadlines. Plaintiffs also

request sanctions and move for a protective order. Defendants oppose, arguing that they did provide

initial disclosures and that the motion to compel, request for sanctions and motion for protective order

are premature. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES in part the motion to compel, DENIES

the request for sanctions and DENIES without prejudice the motion for protective order.

Defendants’ Initial Disclosures.

Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Michael Trevelline of Washington D.C., filed Plaintiffs’ moving papers

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 35 Filed 10/29/07 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

1

 The parties stipulated to the extension themselves. See Mem. Ps.&As Exs. C, D.

2

 While Plaintiffs complain that Defendants did not provide the address and telephone number of

their witnesses, the only specific witnesses Defendants identified were party witnesses, who can be

contacted through counsel.

2 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

and asserted that Defendants failed to make any initial disclosures. Mem. Ps.&As. p.5, ll.2-3. 

Defendants, however, clarified that they in fact sent their initial disclosures to Plaintiffs’ local counsel,

Peter Shenas, on August 1, 2007, and that since August 1 Defendants’ documents have been available

for Plaintiffs to copy. In reply, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ initial disclosures were woefully

inadequate as they fail to address several key issues in the complaint.

Trevelline said that because Defendants failed to provide meaningful initial disclosures, on

August 16, 2007 Plaintiffs sent requests for production and interrogatories that included requests for the

same information that should have been provided in the initial disclosures. Defendants did not respond

to the discovery. Trevelline then explained that on August 24 and September 10, 2007, Shenas

personally met with Defendants’ counsel to resolve these discovery disputes. Ultimately, Plaintiffs gave

Defendants an extension of time to respond to discovery that did not concern the initial disclosures, but

did not extend the time for them to provide further initial disclosure information.1

Rule 26(a)(1) requires that a party, without awaiting a discovery request, must disclose the name,

and if known, the address and telephone number of potential witnesses, categories of documentary

evidence, computation of damages and insurance information. Parties have a duty to supplement 

disclosures made under Rule 26(a)(1) if they learn that (1) their initial disclosures are incomplete or

incorrect; and (2) “the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the

other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(e). According to Rule

26(a)(3), “[a]s trial approaches, the parties must then choose their trial witnesses and exhibits from this

list of persons and documents they have disclosed pursuant to Rule 26.” Crafton v. Blaine Larsen

Farms, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27999, *2 (D. Idaho 2006).

Here, Defendants disclosed this information: (A) they identified as witnesses the two individual

defendants and all witnesses Plaintiffs identified;2 (B) they identified as categories of evidence all

documents produced in the Maryland action, form agreements for Defendants’ contracts, videos of

certain products, product labels and patents and accounting and shipping documents; (C) they contend

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 35 Filed 10/29/07 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

 For example, Plaintiffs’ itemized list of eight categories of documents may be appropriate as a

formal discovery request, as it is not the type of discovery contemplated by initial disclosures.

3 07cv773 BTM (NLS)

that Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages; and (D) there is no insurance coverage for this claim. Opp’n,

Ex. A. Plaintiffs argue these disclosures are inadequate because they do not address several key issues

in the complaint and that they cannot prepare for Defendants’ defenses. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants

refuse to produce the information because they believe they have no liability to Plaintiffs, so need not

produce it.

The Court finds that Defendants did provide initial disclosures that cover the four requirements

of Rule 26(a)(1). While the disclosures fail to address several items in the complaint, Defendants are

free to supplement those disclosures as they become aware of further information. To the extent

Defendants are already aware of information but have not yet disclosed it, they must do so by November

7, 2007. Further, Plaintiffs are free to conduct discovery into additional matters, per Rule 26(a)(5).3

Finally, at trial Defendants will be limited to using only the witnesses and exhibits they identify in their

initial disclosures and supplements thereto.

Because Defendants provided initial disclosures and may supplement that information as the

case progresses, and Plaintiffs are free to conduct further discovery, the Court DENIES in part

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, but GRANTS it in part to the extent that Defendants have not disclosed

information of which they are already aware.

Sanctions.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 states that a Court may award sanctions if it grants a motion

to compel. Because the Court is largely denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, it also DENIES

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

Protective Order.

Plaintiffs also request that the Court enter a protective order to avoid the release of confidential

business information. They assert that discovery requests have been served that seek information

concerning contracts governing Defendants’ sales to major retailers. Plaintiffs argue the requests are

relevant to determine whether commissions are owed, and if so, how much is owed. Defendants oppose

the request, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to show that the information they seek to protect is relevant and

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 35 Filed 10/29/07 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)

necessary to prepare the case for trial. They argue the request for a protective order governing

information in the contracts is premature because Plaintiffs have no substantial proof of an agreement

with Defendants that would entitle them to seek Defendants’ proprietary sales information, and that

Defendants are entitled to a prohibitory protective order that prohibits the production of all such 

confidential documents. The Court notes that while Defendants contend there is no merit to Plaintiffs’

claims, they have not filed a motion to dismiss.

Based on the information before the Court, it appears that Plaintiffs seek a protective order for

discovery responses Defendants are to provide in the future. At this point, Defendants have neither 

answered nor refused to answer the discovery requests, and the Court does not know whether and to

what extent Defendants will comply with the discovery requests. If Defendants produce the documents,

this issue will be moot. If Defendants do not produce the documents, either Defendants can move for a

prohibitory protective order, or Plaintiffs can seek to compel the production.

Based on the papers before the Court, a dispute has not yet arisen regarding the production of

confidential information. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for a

protective order. 

If the issue of a protective order arises again, the Court strongly encourages the parties to

stipulate to a protective order that the Court may enter. Any future proposed protective order must also

include these two provisions:

Nothing shall be filed under seal, and the court shall not be required to

take any action, without separate prior order by the Judge before whom

the hearing or proceeding will take place, after application by the affected

party with appropriate notice to opposing counsel.

The Court may modify the protective order in the interests of justice or for 

public policy reasons.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS Document 35 Filed 10/29/07 Page 4 of 4