Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01955/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01955-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

PAUMA BAND OF LUISENO

MISSION INDIANS OF THE

PAUMA & YUIMA RESERVATION,

a/k/a PAUMA LUISENO BAND OF

MISSION INDIANS, a/k/a PAUMA

BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1955 CAB (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE

SCOPE OF DISCOVERY

[DOC. NO. 186]

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA;

CALIFORNIA GAMBLING

CONTROL COMMISSION, an

agency of the State of California; and

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, as

Governor of the State of California;

Defendants.

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for clarification of the scope

of discovery authorized by the Honorable Cathy A. Bencivengo, United States District

Judge, on May 18, 2012. (See Doc. No. 182). During the hearing on May 18, 2012,

Judge Bencivengo authorized the parties to engage in limited discovery for a period of

sixty (60) days. (Id. at 40). The nature of discovery was limited to written discovery

and no more than three (3) depositions. (Id. at 45). The scope of authorized discovery

- 1 - 09cv1955 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01955-CAB-MDD Document 187 Filed 06/12/12 Page 1 of 3
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

also was limited. It is the scope of that limitation that is before this Court.

The Court has reviewed the motion papers and the transcript of the hearing

before Judge Bencivengo. A critical issue to be addressed by the District Court is

when the statue of limitations began to run in connection with some or all of the

claims asserted by Plaintiff. (Id. at 28). Resolving that issue, in turn, depends in

large part on the nature of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant created

by the 1999 Compact. If, as Plaintiff claims, the 1999 Compact created a relationship

whereby Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, the statute of limitations for

certain claims would not commence until Plaintiff had actual notice of facts sufficient

to trigger the associated causes of action. If, as Defendants claim, there either was no

fiduciary relationship created or it was a very limited fiduciary responsibility, then

the statue of limitations for certain claims may have commenced when Plaintiff

should have known sufficient facts to trigger the associated causes of action. (Id.). 

The Court cannot view Judge Bencivengo’s Order in a vacuum. Any discovery

order must be viewed in relation to the claims and defenses of the parties. Here, the

dispute centers on Defendants’ alleged mishandling of its responsibilities in

determining the availability and distribution of gaming licenses under the 1999

Compact. The Court interprets Judge Bencivengo’s Order as allowing limited

discovery into when Plaintiff’s causes of action under the 1999 Compact accrued for

statute of limitations purposes. That issue, of necessity, as discussed above, requires

discovery into whether or not the 1999 Compact created a fiduciary relationship

between the parties and the scope of that relationship. The Court does not interpret

Judge Bencivengo’s Order as authorizing discovery into whether or not a fiduciary

duty was breached and, if so, damages attendant to that breach.

The scope of authorized discovery at this time is as follows: 

1. Discovery may be obtained, during this period, to facts relating to

whether or not the provisions of the 1999 Compact created a fiduciary

- 2 - 09cv1955 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01955-CAB-MDD Document 187 Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 3
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

relationship between the parties relating to the availability and

distribution of licenses and, if so, the scope of that fiduciary relationship;

and,

2. Discovery may be had, during this period, into facts learned by Plaintiff

that bear on when Plaintiff actually knew or should have known of facts

relating to the improper calculation and distribution of licenses under

the 1999 Compact. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: June 12, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 09cv1955 CAB (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01955-CAB-MDD Document 187 Filed 06/12/12 Page 3 of 3