Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03970/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03970-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 11/2/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DON C. LUNDELL ET AL., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DELL, INC.,

Defendant. /

NO. C-05 3970 JW (RS)

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring defendant “to submit to

‘confirmatory discovery’ regarding the Settlement in this matter.” The Court has reviewed the letter

briefs submitted by the parties and the record herein and finds this matter appropriate for resolution

without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1 (b). Plaintiffs’ request for relief is denied.

In essence, plaintiffs are seeking to enforce obligations they believe exist under the

preliminary settlement agreement. As such, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizing

motions to compel are not directly applicable, particularly to the extent that plaintiffs are requesting

that defendant be required to respond “informally.” Even to the extent that plaintiffs are seeking to

compel a deposition they noticed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (b) (6), relief is not warranted

because the discovery sought by plaintiffs is not directed at obtaining information that “is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (1). Even assuming it is “relevant to the

Case 5:05-cv-03970-JW Document 52 Filed 11/02/06 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

1

 The parties dispute whether discovery is open under Rule 26. Even assuming the parties’

negotiations leading to their joint case management conference statement constituted the conference

required under Rule 26 (f), and that discovery on the merits would otherwise be open, this is not

discovery on the merits.

ORDER 

C-05 3970 JW (RS) 

2

subject matter involved in the action” plaintiffs have not established sufficient “good cause.” Id.1

 

What technological measures defendant is or is not implementing under its view of what is required

by the settlement agreement is simply not an issue that would be litigated in this action were it

proceeding on the merits. Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to conclude that they “need” this

information as a condition to supporting the settlement, but their remedy is to return to litigation

directed to a trial on the merits. While a settlement of this action may well be strongly in the

interests of all concerned, a general provision in a preliminary settlement agreement committing the

parties to an informal exchange of information is not a basis upon which to premise a motion to

compel. Defendant’s attendance at the deposition noticed for November 3, 2006, will not be

compelled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03970-JW Document 52 Filed 11/02/06 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

ORDER 

C-05 3970 JW (RS) 

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Henry John Gutierrez hjgutierrez@lchb.com, snguyen@lchb.com

John Lee Malesovas jmalesovas@alicobuilding.com, john@malesovas.com;

cathy@malesovas.com; sylvia@malesovas.com

Peter C. Meier petermeier@paulhastings.com, nanettecosentino@paulhastings.com;

sungkim@paulhastings.com; sharontugwell@paulhastings.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 11/2/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-03970-JW Document 52 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3