Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00085/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00085-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

CONRAD BRAUN, on behalf of himself

and all other similarly situated

California residents,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv85-JLS (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

REGARDING SETTLEMENT

DISCUSSIONS IN AN

ALLEGEDLY RELATED CASE

[ECF No. 33]

vs.

SAVEOLOGY.COM, LLC, a Florida 

Corporation, and ELEPHANT GROUP,

INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Defendants.

On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking an Order

authorizing expedited discovery of settlement discussions in an allegedly related

class action pending in the Northern District of Illinois. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff

complains that the Illinois case should have been disclosed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

26. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants should have notified Plaintiff and filed a

related case notice under this Court’s Civil Local Rule 40.1(f). (Id.). 

Plaintiff’s motion does not bring before the Court a discovery or other

justiciable dispute with Defendants. Plaintiff, it appears, has not sought discovery

regarding the allegedly related case resulting in objections by Defendants. Unless

and until discovery is sought and objections are interposed, there is nothing for this

- 1 - 12cv85-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00085-JLS-MDD Document 34 Filed 08/31/12 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

Court to decide. In the event a discovery dispute develops, the parties are referred to

this Court’s Civil Chambers Rules regarding the appropriate manner to proceed. 

Plaintiff’s assertion that the Illinois litigation should have been disclosed as

part of Defendants’ initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) is not properly before

the Court. It is not entirely clear that Rule 26(a) requires this disclosure. Even if it

did, Defendants are under a duty to supplement their disclosures in a timely manner

as required by Rule 26(e). If a party fails to disclose or timely supplement a

disclosure, the matter may be brought before the Court as a discovery dispute as

provided in the Court’s Civil Chambers Rules. Such a motion is not before the Court

at this time. 

Civil Local Rule 40.1 imposes on counsel the obligation to disclose to all parties

related cases, as defined in Civ.L.R 40.1(g), and to file with the Court a notice of

related case. Id. at 40.1(f). That obligation is not limited to any particular party. 

The case pending in the Northern District of Illinois involves a different Plaintiff and 

a different Defendant. Elephant Group, Inc., a co-defendant in this case, allegedly is

a counterclaim defendant in the other case. Plaintiff alleges that the factual and

legal issues are similar enough to require disclosure and notice. To the extent

counsel for Plaintiff reasonably believes that the other case is related, the obligation

of disclosure and notice falls to Plaintiff. 

The violations alleged by Plaintiff do not present a controversy to be decided by

the Court. Even if the alleged violations were proved, it is unclear that allowing

Plaintiff to discover or participate in settlement proceedings in another case, related

or not, would be an appropriate remedy.

//

//

//

//

//

- 2 - 12cv85-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00085-JLS-MDD Document 34 Filed 08/31/12 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 12cv85-JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00085-JLS-MDD Document 34 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 3