Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01045/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01045-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLOBAL COMMODITIES TRADING 

GROUP, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BENEFICIO DE ARROZ CHOLOMA, 

S.A.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1045 TLN CKD

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and defendants’ motion for protective order came on 

regularly for hearing on November 16, 2016.

1

 Brian Taylor appeared for plaintiffs. Chad Purdie 

appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing 

the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS2 AS 

FOLLOWS:

1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 68) is granted in part and denied in part. Within thirty 

days, substantive discovery responses shall be provided to discovery as set forth below, except 

 

1

The court reminds the parties that resolution of discovery disputes is available under the 

informal procedures set forth on the undersigned’s court website.

2

The court’s ruling on the issues presented in the joint discovery statement follows the format the 

parties set forth in their briefing. 

Case 2:16-cv-01045-TLN-CKD Document 92 Filed 11/17/16 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

2

insofar as the motion for protective order is granted or defendants’ objections have been 

sustained. 

a. Request for Production (“RFP”) to Bachosa Nos. 1-12, 18-23, 29-30; RFP to 

Andonie Nos. 1-10, 16-19, 25-26; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 1-10, 16-19, 25-26; Interrogatories to 

Bachosa Nos. 1-17; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 1-17; Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 1-17; 

Amended Request for Admission (“RFA”) to Bachosa Nos. 1-19, 27-33; Amended RFA to 

Andonie Nos. 1-17, 19-24; Amended RFA to Jarufe Nos. 1-13, 15-21. 

Plaintiffs have made a colorable showing regarding the jurisdictional issues. 

Defendants’ objections based on jurisdictional discovery are overruled.

b. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 8, 12-17, 19, 23-28; RFP to Andonie Nos. 8, 10-15, 17, 

19-24; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 8, 10-15, 17, 19- 24; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 12-15; 

Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 12-15; Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 12-15; Amended RFA to 

Bachosa Nos. 11-26, 28, 30; Amended RFA to Andonie Nos. 11-18, 20, 22, 24; Amended RFA to 

Jarufe Nos. 7-14, 16, 18, 20-21.

Defendants’ objection based on merits based discovery is sustained in part, as set 

forth below in the ruling on the motion for protective order.

c. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 1-6; RFP to Andonie Nos. 1-6; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 1-6; 

Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 1-11; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 1-11; Interrogatories to 

Jarufe Nos. 1-11.

Defendants’ objection related to time period/scope of discovery is sustained in 

part. In responding to the discovery compelled here, defendants shall provide information for 

five years prior to the filing of the lawsuit up until the date the instant action was filed. Current 

property holdings need not be provided.

d. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 1-6; RFP to Andonie Nos. 1-6; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 1-6; 

Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 1, 3, 5-11; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 1, 3, 5-11; 

Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 1, 3, 5-11; Amended RFA to Bachosa No. 27.

Defendant’s objection related to contracts entered into, communications and calls

made from, and property from outside the State of California is sustained.

Case 2:16-cv-01045-TLN-CKD Document 92 Filed 11/17/16 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

3

e. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 3, 6-10, 12, 18, 19, 20-23, 29-30; RFP to Andonie Nos. 3, 

6-10, 16-10, 25-26; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 3, 6-10, 16-19, 25, 26.

Defendants’ objection related to financial records is sustained without prejudice to 

renewal of the motion to compel after resolution of the pending motions to dismiss.

f. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 20-22; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 4-

13; Amended RFA to Bachosa No. 27. 

Defendant’s objection related to discovery of information pertaining to defendant 

Bachosa’s parent companies and subsidiaries is sustained without prejudice to plaintiffs 

propounding specific discovery directed to determining whether defendant Bachosa has any 

affiliates with contacts in California.

2. Defendants’ motion for protective order staying merits discovery (ECF No. 33) is 

granted in part and denied in part. Pending resolution of the motion to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction and motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, defendants need not 

respond to merits based discovery except as set forth below:

a. RFP No. 8 and Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 propounded to all defendants.

Dated: November 17, 2016

4 global1045.oah

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01045-TLN-CKD Document 92 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 3