Form1 

FORM 1. Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from a Judgment or 

Order of a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Name of United States District Court for the Oregon 

---=----

Case Number 6:14-cv-01192-MC 

The Lance and Linda Neibauer joint Turst, Plaintiff, 

v. NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Michael Kurgan Defendant. 

Notice is hereby given that Michael Kurgan (name all parties* taking 

the appeal) in the above nam~d case hereby aIJPeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit from the Motion to Compel Order (from the final judgment) ((from an 

order) (describe the order)) entered in this action on February 11 201_6_ (date). 

6538 Collins Ave. #288 

Miami Beach, FL 33131 

(Address of appellant or attorney) 

*See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) for permissible ways of identifying appellants. 

107 

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 71 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 4
I 

! 

I 

l 

' 

I 

I 

I 

i 

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 68 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 3 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

THE LANCE AND LINDA NEIBAUER 

JOINT TRUST, by and through LANCE 

NEIBAUER, as trustee, 

Case No. 6: 14-cv-O 1192-MC 

Plaintiff: ORDER 

v. 

MICHAEL J. KURGAN, an individual, 

Defendant. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Plaintiff The Lance and Linda Neibauer Joint Trust move to compel defendant Michael J. 

Kurgan to respond to document requests and interrogatories, and to appear for a deposition in aid 

of enforcing the judgment this Court entered against Kurgan. After oral argument I granted 

plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Kurgan for $13,896.39 

on the breach of contract claim, $46, 730.36 on the Intentional Interference with Contract claim, 

$1,438.04 in costs, and $2,388.99 in prejudgment interest. ECF No. 56. 

I-ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 71 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 4
Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 68 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 3 

While Kurgan appeals that judgment. plaintiff is seeking to enforce that judgment. 

Plaintiff seeks certain discovery in aid of the judgment, as allowed under Rule 69. Kurgan 

refuses to respond to any discovery requests. 

Kurgan argues the stay in this case precludes any discovery. Kurgan is mistaken. At the 

rule 16 conference, after Kurgan explained he would like to 'just go into full discovery on 

everything," ECF No. 62, 9, I stated "So for now I am going to stay discovery. We'll take a look 

at d1e dispositive motion,'' ECF No. 62, 10. I then told Kurgan that if he felt the need for "some 

limited discovery you think you need to do in order to go forward on that dispositive motion, we 

can discuss it at that time." Id at 11. Earlier in the hearing, I stated, "For this period, then, I am 

going to stay discovery. And let's take a look at the dispositive motion, give Mr. Kurgan a 

chance to respond to it." Id. at 10. 

Apparently based on the above language, Kurgan refuses to respond to plaintiff's request 

for discovery under Rule 69, arguing there is a pending stay on all discovery, and that this Court 

may not alter that stay as Kurgan is currently appealing this Court's judgment against him. 

The limited stay entered at the rule 16 hearing applied to discovery sought by Kurgan. Jn 

no way did that stay apply to all future discovery, including any discovery requests in aid of the 

judgment. Plaintiffs motion to compel, ECF No. 63, is GRANTED. 1 

Plaintiff also seeks $2,695.00 in fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. Rule 

37(a)(5) requires a court to require the party whose conduct necessitated a motion to compel to 

pay any fees or costs incurred in bringing the motion. Kurgan's unreasonable insistence that the 

limited stay from the rule 16 conference justified not responding to any discovery requests under 

1 Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED as unnecessary as it will only drive up attorney's fees. 

2-0RDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 71 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 4
i 

i 

l 

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 68 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 3 

rule 69 forced plaintiff to bring this motion to compel. Plaintiff is therefore awarded $2,695.00 in 

expenses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 11th day of February, 2016. 

3-0RDER 

Isl Michael J. McShane 

Michael McShane 

United States District Judge 

I 

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 71 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 4