Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01765/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01765-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 06cv1765

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TC SKYROCKET, LLC, A Michigan limited

liability company,

Civil No. 06-CV-1765 R (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS BY INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS; AND

(2) EXTENDING DATES RELATED TO

THE ALTER EGO ISSUE TRIAL

v.

SUPERSKYROCKET, LLC, a California limited

liability company; MARYANN ELIZABETH

KINGSLEY, a.k.a. MARYANN HONN, an

individual; and RICHARD HONN, an individual,

Defendants.

On March 28, 2007, the Court held a telephonic conference regarding plaintiff TC Skyrocket

LLC’s motion to compel production of financial documents by defendants Maryann Kingsley and

Richard Honn (“the individual defendants”), and plaintiff’s request for an extension of case management

dates. Paul Metsch, Esq., and Tom Landers, Esq., appeared for plaintiff. Patrick McCollogh, Esq.,

appeared for defendants.

This case arises out of a contract dispute between plaintiff TC Skyrocket LLC and defendant

Superskyrocket LLC (“the defendant entity”). Defendants Kingsley and Honn were members and

officers of the defendant entity. Plaintiff alleges the individual defendants are the alter egos of the

defendant entity. The Case Management Order entered on November 16, 2006, bifurcated the alter ego

issue, set it for trial on June 12, 2007, and stayed all discovery other than that related to the alter ego

Case 3:06-cv-01765-JLS-CAB Document 21 Filed 03/29/07 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

2 06cv1765

allegations.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is granted in part and denied in part. 

Plaintiff served requests for financial information on the defendant entity and the individual defendants

and subpoenaed bank records for each defendant. Defendants Kingsley and Honn served relevance and

privilege objections to the requests for their financial information and objected to the production of their

bank records on the same grounds.

The individual defendants’ financial information is relevant to the alter ego determination. 

“Among the factors to be considered in applying the [alter ego] doctrine are commingling of funds and

other assets of the two entities..., identical equitable ownership in the two entities, use of the same

offices and employees, and use of one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other.” Roman

Catholic Archbishop v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App. 3d 405, 411 (1971). Defendants are therefore

ordered to produce their tax returns starting with the year 2002 up to and including all returns filed as of

April 17, 2007. Defendants are further ordered to produce any asset disclosures or financial statements

prepared since January 2002. In consideration of the defendants’ privacy concerns, all documents

ordered to be produced by this ORDER are for ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY pursuant to the

protective order filed in conjunction with this order. The responsive documents are to be served no

later than April 17, 2007. The objections to the subpoenas for the defendants’ bank records are

sustained without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew its requests if the produced documents provide good

cause to do so. 

II. Revised Scheduling Order re Alter Ego Issue

Plaintiff also requested an extension of the case management dates due to delays in obtaining

needed discovery. The Court finds the request made in good faith and therefore enters the following

modified case management order:

1. All discovery, including experts, shall be completed by all parties on or before June 29,

2007.

“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by

Case 3:06-cv-01765-JLS-CAB Document 21 Filed 03/29/07 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 06cv1765

the cut-off date, taking into account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. All discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of the service of an

objection, answer or response which becomes the subject of dispute or the passage of a discovery due

date without response or production, and only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached

impasse with regard to the particular issue.

2. Parties or their counsel shall serve on each other and file with the Clerk of the Court their

Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law in compliance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) on or before July

9, 2007..

3. All parties or their counsel shall also fully comply with the Pretrial Disclosure

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or before July 9, 2007. Failure to comply with these

disclosures requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37.

4. Counsel shall meet together and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) on or

before July 16, 2007. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and

agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall exchange copies and/or display

all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance

with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial

Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed

pretrial conference order.

5. The proposed final pretrial conference order, including objections they have to any other

parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and lodged with the Clerk

of the Court on or before July 23, 2007, and shall be in the form prescribed in and in compliance with

Local Rule 16.1 (f)(6). Counsel shall also bring a court copy of the pretrial order to the pretrial

conference.

6. The final pretrial conference shall be held before the Honorable John S. Rhoades,

United States District Court Judge, on July 30, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.

7. The trial in this matter shall commence on August 20, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

8. All corresponding dates are VACATED. All other dates remain the same. 

Case 3:06-cv-01765-JLS-CAB Document 21 Filed 03/29/07 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 06cv1765

9. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01765-JLS-CAB Document 21 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 4