Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02653/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02653-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALBERGO, an individual;

DAVID IRWIN, an individual, 

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09cv2653-DMS (MDD)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

[ECF NO. 197]

vs.

IMMUNOSYN CORPORATION, a

Delaware Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

On May 25, 2012, Defendants’ filed an ex parte Motion to Re-open Discovery. 

(ECF. No. 197). Plaintiffs filed on Opposition. (ECF. No. 200). For the reasons

presented herein, Defendants’ motion to re-open discovery is denied.1

Background

The initial complaint in this case was filed November 24, 2009. Discovery

opened December 20, 2010. (ECF No. 76). A formal order regulating discovery was

issued shortly after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 123,

137). Defendants were represented by counsel until August 22, 2011. (ECF Nos. 138,

142). All discovery closed March 12, 2012. On April 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion

All of the corporate Defendants have been defaulted and there has been no motion to lift the 1

default. Accordingly, the Court will consider the instant motion only in regard to the individual

Defendants.

- 1 - 09cv2653-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02653-DMS-MDD Document 208 Filed 07/02/12 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

for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF. No. 184). On May 8, 2012, three days before

the scheduled hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, new counsel

entered his appearance and Defendants filed an ex parte application for a ninety-day

continuance of the summary judgment hearing. (ECF No. 191). The district judge

issued an order on May 10, 2012, extending the dates for: 1) the filing of Defendants’

opposition; 2) the final pretrial conference; and 3) the trial. (ECF No. 194). 

In support of their motion to re-open discovery, Defendants rely upon the

arrival of new counsel and claim that they “stand to be prejudiced by not being able

to obtain necessary trial information in the defense of their case.” (Defs’. Mtn. at 3). 

Defendants state that previous counsel focused on settlement and failed to propound

any discovery in preparation for trial. Consequently, Defendants assert that they are

completely unprepared for a trial on the merits. (Id. at 3). Defendants’ motion does

not identify any specific discovery that they seek to obtain; the request is for a

general re-opening of discovery. 

In opposing Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs’ contend that while discovery was

open Defendants “did not propound any discovery, of any nature, upon the Plaintiffs.”

(Pls’. Opp at 2). Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants’ response to the discovery

propounded by Plaintiffs was a blanket assertion of the 5 Amendment privilege th

against self-incrimination and that Defendants did not produce any requested

documents. (Id.) 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides “[a] schedule may be modified

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The Ninth Circuit has held that

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause standard’ primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. (internal

- 2 - 09cv2653-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02653-DMS-MDD Document 208 Filed 07/02/12 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

citations omitted). Here, Defendants have not demonstrated the requisite diligence

necessary to demonstrate good cause. 

In support of their motion, Defendants note they were without legal

representation from August 26, 2011 to May 8, 2012, rendering them unable to

conduct discovery. This claim is meritless - parties representing themselves in civil

actions before this court, including prisoners, regularly propound and litigate

discovery requests. Discovery opened in this case on December 20, 2010, when the

magistrate judge previously assigned to the case issued an order stating “[d]iscovery

may commence on the issue set forth in the Complaint at this time.” (ECF No. 76). In

April 2011, upon transfer to this Court, regular telephonic case management

conferences were held to discuss the status of the case including the status of

discovery. The Court’s notes reflect that during case management conferences

Defendants, through counsel, did not claim an inability to timely pursue discovery.

Indeed, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Plan on July 28, 2011 (ECF No. 128) and

on August 18, 2011, a scheduling order imposing a discovery deadline of March 12,

2012 was filed. (ECF No. 137). Following the filing of the scheduling order, the Court

continued to hold telephonic case management conferences. 

Notably, the last two case management conferences were held after

Defendants’ counsel had withdrawn. Now representing themselves, Defendants did

not raise the issue of discovery or attempt to seek relief from the discovery deadlines.2

( ECF Nos 168 and 178). Even after new counsel entered an appearance May 8, 2012,

it wasn’t until May 25, 2012, that the instant motion was filed.

It simply is not enough, considering the history of this case, that general

discovery should be re-opened solely because new counsel has entered the case. As

noted above, the inquiry is whether the party seeking relief has been diligent in

meeting the deadlines contained in the pretrial scheduling order. Here, discovery has

The Court acknowledges that the corporate defendants were unable to participate in those case

2

management conferences due to their lack of representation and, since they have been defaulted, are not

being considered in this motion. 

- 3 - 09cv2653-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02653-DMS-MDD Document 208 Filed 07/02/12 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

been open since December 20, 2010, and Defendants have offered little, beyond the

entry of new counsel, in support of their claim that would justify re-opening

discovery. “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no

reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. For these reasons, the Court

declines to re-open discovery.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to re-open discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 09cv2653-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02653-DMS-MDD Document 208 Filed 07/02/12 Page 4 of 4