Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-00848/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-00848-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UZOMA GOGO NWAKUCHE

and KEGO EGBUONU,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

REGNERY PUBLISHING, INC.,

and KENNETH TIMMERMAN,

 Defendants.

___________________________/

No. C 03-0848 CW (WDB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL ADDITIONAL

RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

REQUESTS

Having considered the parties’ written and oral submissions, the court

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part, as reflected in the orders entered below,

defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Certain Interrogatories and Document

Requests (docket number 39). 

1. Because defendants refuse to concede that the gravamen or essential ‘sting’

of the allegedly defamatory material is not true, plaintiffs must produce

(a) their personal tax returns, and the tax returns of any ventures in which they

held a significant financial interest, for the tax years 1997 and 1998; and

(b) any business contracts to which either plaintiff was a party, or to which any

venture in which either plaintiff held a significant financial interest was a

party, and that were entered or were in effect during 1997 or 1998; and 

Case 4:03-cv-00848-CW Document 68 Filed 10/13/05 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

2

(c) all communications that occurred in 1996, 1997, or 1998, between any

Nigerian governmental official and either plaintiff or any venture in which

either plaintiff held a significant financial interest. 

2. Defendants attempt to justify some of their discovery probes on the theory

that they are necessary to fairly test plaintiffs’ damages claims. But because neither

plaintiff will seek damages based on any economic harm that might have been caused

by the publication of the allegedly defamatory material, no discovery into either

plaintiff’s financial circumstances (past or present) can be justified on this theory. 

However, because plaintiffs assert that the publication of the allegedly defamatory

material caused them to suffer severe emotional and reputational damages, for the

period beginning in January of 2000 through the present, plaintiffs must disclose

(through documents and deposition testimony) (1) all of their medical records and (2)

all occurrences that might reasonably be expected to cause a person to experience

substantial emotional harm or feelings of sadness or depression. 

3. Defendants also seek to justify some discovery probes on the theory that

plaintiffs might be deemed “public figures.” Defendants could not identify a

reasonable basis for this theory as to plaintiff Egbuonu – and the basis for the theory

as to plaintiff Nwakuche was thin. As a consequence, the only documentary

discovery the court orders at this time on this theory is disclosure by Mr. Nwakuche

of a full version of his resume. Defense counsel may ask questions designed to

explore Mr. Nwakuche’s notoriety during his deposition.

4. Plaintiffs must make a reasonable effort to find current contact information

for each person they have identified as having knowledge that might support their

contentions in this litigation. After making this reasonable effort, plaintiffs (through

Case 4:03-cv-00848-CW Document 68 Filed 10/13/05 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

3

their lawyer) must promptly share this information with defense counsel. Plaintiffs’

counsel also must help defense counsel locate and communicate with the three

witnesses who apparently live in the East Bay. 

Except to the extent set forth above, defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2005.

 /s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

All parties, CW,

WDB, Stats

Case 4:03-cv-00848-CW Document 68 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 3