UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PT PUKUAFU INDAH, PT LEBONG

TANDAI, PT TANJUNG SERA PUNG,

GIDEON MINERALS U.S.A., INC.,

and DR. LEONARD L.J. YOUNG,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-10943

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

UNITED STATES SECURITIES &

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, MARY

J. SCHAPIRO, THE EXPORT IMPORT

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, JAMES H.

LAMBRIGHT, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.,

NEWMONT MINING CORP., GOLDMAN 

SACHS GROUP, INC., 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLC,

JAMES NELSON LANE, DEVONWOOD

CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and

NEW CANAAN SOCIETY,

Defendants.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALLOW

LIMITED DISCOVERY

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan, on_August 3, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for limited discovery, filed July 29,

2009. Plaintiffs identify the scope of the discovery they are seeking as follows:

a. Disclosures on the Securities and Exchange

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 81 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2238
2

Commission Public filings and the 10Ks of Newmont

Mining Corporation relative to its claims of ownership

of Plaintiffs’ assets designated in the proposed Third

Amended Complaint and in the prior Complaints filed

in this matter.

b. In regard to the lending decisions and supporting

documentation relative to Defendant Export Import

Bank of the United States loan APO #71225

c. Information supporting the certified financial

statements provided by Defendant

PriceWaterhouseCoopers in support of Defendant

Newmont Mining Corporation’s SEC filings, as it

relates to claims on those audit reports concerning the

ownership of Plaintiffs’ assets Bata Hijau and

Minanhasa Raya by Defendant Newmont Mining

Corporation.

d. Further, Plaintiffs wish to take discovery as to

jurisdictional issues.

Plaintiffs apparently are seeking this discovery to address the Court’s personal

jurisdiction over Defendant Newmont Mining Corporation and motions to dismiss filed

by the remaining defendants.

The Court, however, already ruled on whether it has personal jurisdiction over

Newmont. At no time before the Court’s ruling did Plaintiffs indicate that they needed to

conduct discovery to address Newmont’s motion to dismiss based on lack of personal

jurisdiction. Moreover, the documents Plaintiffs now seek are not the kind likely to

reveal contacts between Newmont and this forum sufficient to support this Court’s

exercise of jurisdiction over this defendant.

With respect to the motions to dismiss filed by the remaining Defendants,

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 81 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2239
3

Plaintiffs have not indicated that they need discovery to respond to the motions and, in

fact, Plaintiffs already filed their response briefs. In any event, the requested documents

are not relevant to the issues raised in Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow Limited Discovery is

DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Dr. Leonard L.J. Young

Counsel of Record

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 81 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2240