Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02061/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02061-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1441 - Petition for Removal: SEC Act

---

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

FRANK SCOGNAMILLO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON,

LLC f/k/a CREDIT SUISSE FIRST

BOSTON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C03-2061 TEH 

ORDER APPOINTING

SPECIAL MASTER FOR

DISCOVERY

On February 25, 2008, this Court held a Case Management Conference in which the

parties described several disputes unfolding as the current discovery cutoff looms. Even

though discovery has been underway in this case since approximately December, 2005, the

parties still have disagreements, on topics ranging from the extent of the attorney-client

privilege to the degree to which discovery will touch on government investigations of other

entities, that affect both parties’ production of documents, the 30(b)(6) deposition of Credit

Suisse that began on October 30, 2007, and several requests for admission propounded by

Plaintiffs. The parties insist that these are not routine discovery disputes, but will involve

fact-specific analysis in a complex and document-heavy case.

The Court will not burden a Magistrate Judge with these extensive disputes. As

another judge in this district explained long ago:

The discovery system depends absolutely on good faith and

common sense from counsel. The courts, sorely pressed by

demands to try cases promptly and to rule thoughtfully on

potentially case dispositive motions, simply do not have the

resources to police closely the operation of the discovery process.

The whole system of Civil adjudication would be ground to a

Case 3:03-cv-02061-TEH Document 217 Filed 03/03/08 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

virtual halt if the courts were forced to intervene in even a modest

percentage of discovery transactions. That fact should impose on

counsel an acute sense of responsibility about how they handle

discovery matters. They should strive to be cooperative, practical

and sensible, and should turn to the courts (or take positions that

force others to turn to the courts) only in extraordinary situations

that implicate truly significant interests.

In re Convergent Tech. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985). A discovery

master is necessary to avoid wasting judicial resources and preventing a timely resolution of

this case.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Edward Swanson, Esq., of Swanson, McNamara, & Haller, LLP, is appointed as

Special Master to supervise and preside over all remaining discovery in this case.

a. If necessary, the Special Master may attend all or portions of any remaining

depositions, rule on all objections made by counsel during the depositions, rule on any

instructions by counsel for the deponent not to answer a question, and order the deponent to

respond to questions.

b. The Special Master shall immediately notify this Court if, during a

deposition in which he is in attendance, any counsel fails to comply or cooperate fully with

any of the Special Master’s rulings.

2. The Special Master shall have discretion to hear discovery matters on shortened

time, and shall also have authority to recommend to the Court new discovery deadlines

and/or to recommend that case management conferences be rescheduled, as appropriate.

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 shall apply to proceedings before the Special

Master, except that the parties shall have 10 days to Object or Move to Adopt or Modify an

order, report, or recommendation by the Special Master, rather than the 20 days set out in

Rule 53(f)(2).

4. The Special Master’s hourly fee shall be $450.00. The presumption shall be that

the Special Master’s fees will be split evenly between the parties; the Special Master shall,

however, have discretion to allocate and assess the payment of his fees among the parties as

he believes appropriate, for each issue that arises. The parties shall pay the Special Master’s

Case 3:03-cv-02061-TEH Document 217 Filed 03/03/08 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

fees within ten calendar days of assessment, unless otherwise excused by the Special Master

or this Court.

5. At his earliest convenience, the Special Master shall contact the parties to discuss

the execution of his duties in connection with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/3/08 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-02061-TEH Document 217 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3