Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06319/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-filed 10/30/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GEORGETTE POULIOT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

URSULA WEISS, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C06-06319 JW

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

On the same day they filed their "Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint," plaintiffs

filed what they styled an "Ex parte Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery." The

discovery sought consists of certain financial and accounting books and records of Applied

Specialties of California, Inc., a California corporation. Plaintiffs claims to be the majority

shareholders of that corporation. Defendant Ursula Weiss is alleged to be the corporate

president and a minority shareholder. Plaintiffs allege they have been trying for months to get

access to corporate information that they are entitled to by right, and that they need in

conjunction with a contemplated sale of the corporation to a third party. Weiss, who apparently

opposes the third party sale (and wants to buy control of the corporation herself) has supposedly

stonewalled all of plaintiffs' entreaties for the information.

Case 5:06-cv-06319-JW Document 4 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The plaintiffs may well be entitled to the discovery they seek, but they will not get it

here and now. Defendants have not appeared. (Indeed, it is unknown if they have even been

served with a summons and a complaint.) Worse, the plaintiffs' present motion does not seek

permission to propound early discovery; rather, it presumptiously asks the court (with no notice

to defendants) to issue an order requiring them to turn over the information in question. This

the court will not do. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/30/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-06319-JW Document 4 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Vernon H. Granneman vernon.granneman@pillsburylaw.com, meri@pillsburylaw.com;

david.tull@pillsburylaw.com 

Stephen N. Hollman jls@businessandtechnologylawgroup.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up

for e-filing.

Dated: 10/30/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-06319-JW Document 4 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3