Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03033/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03033-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Oncology Therapeutics Network

Connection,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Virginia Hematology Oncology

PLLC, a limited liability company;

Ronald Poulin, an individual, 

 Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

No. C 05-3033 WDB

 

ORDER FOLLOWING DECEMBER 1,

2005, TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE

On December 1, 2005, the Court held a telephonic conference in the above-referenced

case. The Court and the parties initially discussed the discovery issues raised in defense

counsel's November 29, 2005, correspondence. During this initial discussion, the Court

issued the following rulings:

1. The Court agreed with defendants' position that it is not proper to use a Rule

30(b)(6) deposition notice to 'end-run' the time provisions of Rule 34.

2. The Court's Order of October 25, 2005, states that, "plaintiff may depose Dr.

Poulin regarding the . . . nature, amount and location of his assets (and, if he is designated

Virginia Hematology Oncology's 30(b)(6) witness on this topic, the nature, amount, and

location of defendant Virginia Hematology Oncology's assets)." See Order Following

October 19, 2005, Hearing on Plaintiff's Application for Writ of Attachment And Right to

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 43 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
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

 During the hearing, the Court orally set a January 16, 2006, deadline for filing these papers.

January 16, 2006, however, is a Court holiday.

2

Attach Order, filed October 25, 2005, p. 4. The Court's Order does not contain a restriction

limiting plaintiff's counsel to inquiring about assets located in California, and the Court

declines to add such a limitation now.

After the Court made the above-described rulings, defense counsel mentioned that he

intended to file a motion for summary judgment within the next two weeks. After brief

discussion regarding the nature and implications of defendants' anticipated summary

judgment motion, the Court set the following schedule:

1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than December

16, 2005.

2. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment must be filed

by January 9, 2006. In addition, if plaintiff wishes to file a motion to amend its Complaint

to include an alter ego theory of liability against defendant Poulin, he must also file that

motion (the motion to amend) by January 9, 2006.

3. Defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment must be filed

by January 17, 2006.1 If plaintiff files a motion to amend its Complaint, defendants'

opposition to the motion to amend also is due on January 17, 2006.

4. If plaintiff files a motion to amend its Complaint, its reply in support of its motion

must be filed by January 23, 2006.

5. A hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment and on plaintiff's motion

to amend the Complaint (if one is filed) will be held on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at

1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2005 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Parties, WDB, stats

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 43 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2