Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03953/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03953-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

ORDER RE: DDJR NO. 3

Case No 14-CV-03953 - 1 -

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

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed: January 16, 2015*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MONTEREY BAY MILITARY HOUSING,

LLC, CLARK PINNACLE MONTEREY 

BAY LLC, CLARK MONTEREY PRESIDIO 

LLC, CALIFORNIA MILITARY 

COMMUNITIES LLC, CLARK PINNACLE 

CALIFORNIA MILITARY COMMUNITIES 

LLC and CLARK IRWIN, LLC,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

PINNACLE MONTEREY LLC, PINNACLE

IRWIN LLC, AMERICAN MANAGEMENT

SERVICES CALIFORNIA INC., 

AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

LLC D/B/A PINNACLE, GOODMAN REAL 

ESTATE, INC., GOODMAN FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, INC., STANLEY HARRELSON 

and JOHN GOODMAN,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-03953 BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 3

[Re Docket No. 77]

Plaintiffs sue defendants for “a series of systematic frauds” relating to defendants’ 

management of military housing at the Presidio of Monterey and Fort Irwin. Fourth Amended 

Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-23, at 2. In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #3 plaintiffs seek 

drafts of the 6/17/2013 declaration of Stacia Schuster, a former employee of defendant AMS. 

Case 5:14-cv-03953-BLF Document 93 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER RE: DDJR NO. 3

Case No 14-CV-03953 - 2 -

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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs contend that Ms. Schuster’s June 2013 declaration “flatly contradicts” evidence 

produced during discovery, including a later deposition of Ms. Schuster, and plaintiffs seek drafts of 

the declaration so that plaintiffs can “effectively inquire into the contents of Ms. Schuster’s 

declaration.” Dkt. No. 77 at 1, 7. 

First, plaintiffs’ so called “flat contradictions” are not shown in the record. Most of the 

contradictions are merely inconsistencies or evidence that shows people have imperfect memories of 

events that took place over 5 years ago. Second, as plaintiffs’ acknowledge, the drafts of the 

declaration are attorney work product that is only discoverable if plaintiffs show substantial need. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Plaintiffs have not met that burden. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose 

Ms. Schuster on her declaration, drew out the inconsistencies mentioned in the DDJR, and may be 

able to use those inconsistencies to impeach Ms. Schuster at trial. Plaintiffs were also able to extract 

additional information from Ms. Schuster related to the contents of her declaration, and obtained 

information from others that casts light on her declaration. Plaintiffs were not deprived of their 

ability to inquire into the contents of Ms. Schuster’s declaration. Plaintiffs also have no basis for 

suggesting that defense counsel “framed” the statements in the declaration. The fact that Ms. 

Schuster did not remember who prepared the declaration does not suggest otherwise. Accordingly, 

the court denies plaintiffs’ request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 _________________________________

Howard R. Lloyd

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03953-BLF Document 93 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2