Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114-17/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ISMART INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Plaintiff, 

vs.

I-DOCSECURE, LLC, a California limited liability

company; E-NETSECURE SERVICES, INC., a

California corporation; INTEGRITY DATA

APPLICATION CONSULTING, LLC, a California

limited liability company; ISMART SECURE LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; JOSEPH BAGGIO,

an individual; JONATHAN BALZORA, an individual,

Defendants. 

______________________________________________

CASE NO. C 04-03114 RMW (RS)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

______________________________________________

On September 26, 2006, defendants herein requested a telephone conference with the Court

to resolve a discovery dispute between the parties. At the direction of the Court, the parties filed

letter briefs setting forth the nature of the dispute and their respective positions. Defendants

contend, in essence, that it is improper for plaintiff to refuse to produce witnesses for deposition

while plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defendants’ counsel remains pending before the presiding

judge. Plaintiff contends, in essence, that requiring the depositions to proceed now would amount

to a de facto denial of the motion to disqualify, and that doing so would exceed the jurisdiction of

* E-Filed 10/02/06 *

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 323 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Under a stipulated order, plaintiff is barred from objecting to the participation of defendants’

counsel “in any proceedings in this case.” Although that language arguably is broad enough to include

the depositions in dispute, plaintiff’s argument is persuasive that the intent of the stipulation was only

to permit then-pending law and motion matters to go forward, particularly given that the stipulation and

order expressly contemplated that depositions would not go forward until the motion to disqualify had

been decided. See Order filed July 6, 2006 at ¶¶ 5-6.

2

the undersigned. Plaintiff further contends that many of the depositions in dispute were not noticed

or subpoenaed in a timely and proper manner.

To the extent that there is an issue as to whether any or all of the depositions were timely or

properly noticed, the parties’ disputes are not amenable to resolution on the limited record of these

letter briefs or in a telephone conference. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for such relief is denied,

without prejudice to any motion made in conformance with the Civil Local Rules.

To the extent that there may be no dispute that at least some of the depositions at issue were

timely and properly noticed, the Court declines to order those depositions to go forward at this

juncture. In a prior order, the Court noted that the pendency of the motion to disqualify would not

serve as a basis to deny a motion to compel responses to discovery that had been propounded prior

to the time that defendants’ present counsel became involved in this action. As the Court noted,

plaintiff’s entitlement or lack of an entitlement to that discovery did not turn on the outcome of the

disqualification motion. The issue presented now is somewhat different. Although it is true that

defendants’ right, or lack thereof, to take the depositions in dispute will not turn on the outcome of

the disqualification motion, the disqualification motion is premised on the contention that

defendants’ counsel is barred by the duty of loyalty from representing them in this action. If

plaintiff’s view of the facts and the law is correct, it would be inappropriate for its witnesses to be

subjected to depositions taken by defendants’ present counsel, even if substitute counsel for

defendants might ultimately be permitted to take the same depositions.1

Finally, regardless of the outcome of the disqualification motion, in the event that

defendants can show that they have suffered actual prejudice from the delay, given the presently 

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 323 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 4
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

scheduled trial date, the remedy will be to seek scheduling relief from the presiding judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 323 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED

TO:

Dated: 

By:_______________________

Chambers

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 323 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 4