Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05971/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05971-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

BOSTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

GROUP INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT WOOD,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 02-05971 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 18, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and

opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED

to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

//

Case 3:02-cv-05971-JSW Document 222 Filed 04/17/08 Page 1 of 2
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 Court tentatively sustains Wood’s objections to the Supplemental Marshall

Declaration, except to the extent it identifies persons with knowledge relevant to this litigation. 

The Court tentatively grants Wood’s motion to dismiss.

Each party shall have (20) minutes to address the following questions:

1. Apart from the reference to the State Department website, Plaintiffs evidence

regarding the inadequacy of the Slovak Republic as an adequate alternate forum

pertains to his personal difficulties. Does Plaintiff have any additional authority

to suggest that this is a sufficient basis on which to conclude it does not

constitute an adequate alternate forum? See, e.g., Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l, Inc., 981 F.2d 1345, 1351 n.2 (1st Cir. 1992); cf. Tennecal Funding Corp. v. Sakura

Bank, 87 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. June 19, 1996) (unpublished opinion citing Mercier

favorably). 

2. Wood argues that it will be impossible to litigate all of Plaintiffs’ claims in this

forum because the Deloitte Defendants are not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. 

Given the Court’s finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Wood did not

act as the Deloitte Defendants’ agent, what relevance, if any, do the Deloitte

Defendants have to the Plaintiffs’ claims or Wood’s defenses?

a. What is the importance or materiality of the Deloitte Defendant’s

corporate structure? (See Svirha Declaration, Ex. A (Plaintiffs’ Initial

Disclosures at 5.)

b. What is the importance or materiality of Mr. Marshall’s business

practices to this litigation? (See Docket 95 (Wood Declaration) ¶ 9.) 

3. Defendant asserts that witnesses located abroad cannot be compelled to testify in

this forum. Plaintiff identifies certain witnesses who may work or reside within

the United States or Canada. Can those witnesses be compelled to testify in the

Slovak Republic? 

4. Do Plaintiffs contend that Wood’s initial disclosures contain new information

that would impact the Court’s analysis of any of the private or public interest

factors? 

5. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: April 17, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-05971-JSW Document 222 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 2