Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00382/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00382-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Defendants Tracy Coenen and Sequence, Inc. joined in the ex parte motion for extension of

time. (Doc. No. 79-1.) Defendants Barry Minkow and Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc. did not filed an

opposition. 

1 10cv382-JLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDIFAST, INC.; BRADLEY

MACDONALD,

Civil No. 10-CV-382-JLS (BGS)

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

v. TIME 

BARRY MINKOW; FRAUD DISCOVERY

INSTITUTE, INC.; ROBERT L.

FITZPATRICK; TRACY COENEN;

SEQUENCE, INC.; WILLIAM LOBDELL;

IBUSINESS REPORTING; and

ZEEYOURSELF,

Defendants.

On September 30, 2010, Plaintiffs Medifast, Inc. and Bradley MacDonald filed an ex parte motion

for extension of time to complete discovery as to third-party witness Christopher Grell.1

 (Doc. No. 79.)

Plaintiffs seek an eighteen (18) day extension of the limited discovery ordered by the District Court. (See

Doc. No. 46.) The Court ordered this discovery to take place within ninety (90) days and was to be

completed on or before August 4, 2010. (Doc. Nos. 46 & 47.) On August 13, 2010, the Court granted

Plaintiffs an extension of sixty (60) days to October 4, 2010, to complete thirteen items of outstanding

discovery. (Doc. No. 63.) Plaintiffs now seek an eighteen day extension of the discovery cut-off to

complete items 10 and 11 that relate to third-party witness Christopher Grell. (Doc. No. 79.) Third-party

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 83 Filed 10/01/10 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

Grell filed the response in opposition as “Attorney for Christopher E. Grell.” (Doc. No. 80.) 

However, Grell is not a party to this action. He represents Defendant Fitzpatrick. 

3

The Court notes that Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(a)(1)(C) states that “[a] commend to produce

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of a premises

may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set

out in a separate subpoena.” 

4

Plaintiffs served Grell with the subpoenas by Fed-Ex on August 16, 2010. (Doc. No. 79-2,

Cohen Decl. ¶12.) Grell notified Plaintiffs that he had no intention of complying with the document

subpoena based on improper service on August 23, 2010, and served his objections to the subpoenas on

August 25, 2010. (Id.) Plaintiffs attempted to resolve the issue with Grell through extensive email

correspondence, but Grell refused to change his position and refused to discuss the matter by telephone. 

(Id.) Plaintiffs, after retaining local counsel in the Northern District and unsuccessfully meeting

conferring with Gell on a shortened briefing schedule for a motion to compel, filed the motion to compel

on September 9, 2010 after it was clear that the parties were at an impasse. (Id. ¶¶12-13.) The Northern

District granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a shortened briefing schedule and set the hearing on Plaintiffs’

motion to compel for September 27, 2010. (Id. ¶15, Ex. 1.) The Northern District moved the hearing on

its own motion to September 29, 2010. (Id. ¶16, Ex. 2.) Then, due to a family emergency, Judge Spero

reset the hearing on October 8, 2010. (Id. ¶¶17 & 20, Ex. 3.) 

2 10cv382-JLS

witness Christopher Grell filed a response in opposition2 to Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion on September 30,

2010. (Doc. No. 80.) 

Grell, a third-party witness and an attorney representing Defendant Robert L. Fitzpatrick in this case,

agreed during a case management conference on August 13, 2010 that he would accept service of a thirdparty witness subpoena by mail or Fed-Ex delivery.3

 (Doc. No. 63 at 2.) Plaintiffs had been attempting to

serve Grell with third-party subpoenas for his attendance at a deposition and for production of documents.

(See Doc. No. 56-2, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs served Grell with the subpoenas by Federal Express delivery on

August 16, 2010. (Doc. No. 79-2, Cohen Decl. ¶8.) Grell objected to service by Fed-Ex of a subpoena

duces tecum on the ground that he only agreed to accept service of one deposition subpoena by mail or FedEx delivery. (Id. ¶10.) Plaintiffs then moved to compel Grell’s compliance with the subpoena duces tecum

in the Northern District of California. (Id. ¶13.) The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is currently

scheduled on October 8, 2010 before Judge Spero. (Id. Ex. 3.) Therefore, Grell’s document production and

deposition remain outstanding discovery issues that will not be resolved by the October 4, 2010 deadline.

It appears that Plaintiffs have acted with due diligence in attempting to resolve the issues relating to the

subpoenas and in attempting to complete all the discovery by the deadline.4

 

Grell fails to put forth any substantive argument against a brief extension of time that will allow the

Northern District of California an opportunity to decide the pending motion to compel. (See Doc. No. 80.)

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 83 Filed 10/01/10 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 10cv382-JLS

Grell’s arguments concern mainly the use by Plaintiffs of an ex parte motion for an extension of time, which

Plaintiffs were granted permission to file by the Court. Plaintiffs have complied with Civ. L.R. 83.3(h) by

attaching a declaration of counsel that Grell was informed about Plaintiffs’ intention to file the motion to

extend time and chose not to join in the motion. (Doc. No. 79-2 ¶¶19 & 21.) Grell’s other arguments go

to the merits of the pending motion to compel that is currently in front of Judge Spero. This Court will defer

to Judge Spero’s ruling on the pending motion, as the Northern District of California has jurisdiction over

the disputed subpoenas. 

The Court, for good cause shown, grants Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for extension of time to complete

discovery and extends the limited discovery cutoff to October 22, 2010. The extension of time for

completing limited discovery shall be limited to the two items of outstanding discovery that relate to Grell

and are identified in Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for extension of time. (Doc. No. 79-1 at 2.) The limited

period of discovery cutoff remains October 4, 2010 for all other items. 

Plaintiffs have also requested sanctions be imposed on Grell. (Doc. No. 79-1 at 7.) Plaintiffs seek

sanctions in the form of payment of the attorneys fees and costs associated with bringing the instant ex parte

motion for a second extension of time. (Id.) The Court advised the parties that failure of any party to act

with due diligence in completing the limited discovery within the extended time period may result in the

imposition of sanctions. (Doc. No. 63 at 2.) While the Court questions the propriety of Grell’s alleged

conduct and how it may affect his representation of Fitzpatrick, Grell is not a party to this action and his

dilatory tactics do not relate to discovery propounded upon his client in this matter. He is a third-party

witness who is objecting to service of a subpoena issued out of another district. Plaintiffs have failed to

supply the Court with any legal basis for imposing sanctions in such a situation. Therefore, the Court denies

Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2010

_________________________________

BERNARD G. SKOMAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00382-CAB-BGS Document 83 Filed 10/01/10 Page 3 of 3