Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01213/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, as ) 

Receiver for Sioux Valley Savings ) 

and Loan Association, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROBERT J. KROGH, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FIL~JJ 

United States Coμrt qf AppealP Tenth c,reuit 

DECO 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1213 

(D.C. No. 89-B-1330) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Robert J. Krogh appeals from the district court's 

denial of his motion for a new trial, or in the alternative to 

alter or amend judgment. The district court had granted judgment 

in favor of the Resolution Trust Corporation as receiver for Sioux 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1213 Document: 010110149258 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 1 
Valley Savings and Loan Association on a promissory note it found 

had been signed by defendant. The district court's decision was 

based in part upon the unavailability of certain defenses raised 

by defendant under the Supreme Court's decision, D'Oench Duhme & 

Co., Inc. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 (1942). Defendant asserted that 

the promissory note he gave to M.L. Properties, Inc., the original 

holder, was different from the note that M.L. Properties assigned 

to Sioux Valley Savings, purportedly signed by defendant. Hence 

he is asserting that the note he was sued upon was a forgery. 

Defendant's arguments on appeal are that the court abused its 

discretion when it did not allow reopening of discovery to take 

the depositions of Martin List, who resided in Israel and later in 

California and had been president of M.L. Properties, and of Jack 

Odom, an officer of Sioux Valley Savings who was in prison. 

The district court's order denying relief is based on its 

finding that defendant 

never showed me good cause for believing that the testimony of either List or Odom would demonstrate that the 

note without the buy-back agreement was a forgery. 

Although List or Odom might have testified concerning 

the impropriety of the transaction between List and the 

bank, this was not the material issue here. 

Appellant Appendix 96-97. 

We review the denial of the reopening of discovery under an 

abuse of discretion standard. See Martinez v. Schock Transfer & 

Warehouse Co., 789 F.2d 848, 850 (10th Cir. 1986). After reviewing the record we are satisfied that defendant made an insufficient showing that either List's or Odom's testimony would have 

aided his forgery defense. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1213 Document: 010110149258 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 2 
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1213 Document: 010110149258 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 3