View
215
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLPJOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)jcotchett@cpmlegal.comMARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009)mmolumphy@cpmlegal.comJORDANNA G. THIGPEN (SBN 232642)jthigpen@cpmlegal.comMATTHEW K. EDLING (SBN 250940)medling@cpmlegal.comSan Francisco Airport Office Center840 Malcolm RoadBurlingame, CA 94010Telephone: (650) 697-6000Fax:(650) 697-0577
MILBERG LLPJEFF S. WESTERMAN (SBN 94559)jwesterman@milberg.comDAVID E. AZAR (SBN 218319)dazar@milberg.comMICHIYO M. FURUKAWA (SBN 234121)mfurukawa@milberg.comOne California Plaza300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900Los Angeles, CA 90071Tel: (213) 617-1200Fax: (213) 617-1975
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION- SANTA ANA
IN RE: MEDICAL CAPITALSECURITIES LITIGATION
This document relates to:
Case No.: SA CV 09-1048 DOC(RNBx)
))))))))))))))))
LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC(RNBx)
MOTION TO COMPELCONTINUATION OF 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION, PRODUCTION OFAN ADEQUATE WITNESS, ANDREQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
DATE: April 25, 2012TIME: 10:00 AMJUDGE: Special Master William
McDonald
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx)
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:8275
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 25, 2012, telephonically at 10:00
a.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard before the Honorable William F.
McDonald (Ret.), Special Master for this Action, at the Judicial Arbitration and
Mediation Services (JAMS) office at 500 N. State College Blvd., 14th Floor,
Orange, CA 92868, or at such other location as the Special Master or the Court
shall specify, Plaintiffs Steven Masonek, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) will move for an
order compelling Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo” or
“Defendant”) to offer Ms. Mary Sohlberg for the continuation of her deposition
and to produce an adequate witness for subsequent Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.
Further, Plaintiffs will move for an order to require Defendant to bear appropriate
costs associated with such Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.
Plaintiffs make this Motion pursuant to the Court’s September 2, 2010
Order Setting Procedure for Consideration of Discovery Disputes, which requires
the parties to follow L. Civ. Rules 6-1, 7-9, and 7-10. This motion is also made
following the conference of counsel, which took place on February 22, 2012.
The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, the Declaration of Jordanna G. Thigpen and its accompanying
exhibits, the documents on file in this action, and documents subject to judicial
notice and such written or oral argument as may be presented.
DATED: March 28, 2012 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
/s/
JORDANNA G. THIGPEN
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 1
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:8276
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Summary of Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. The 30(b)(6) Deposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. The Parties’ Meet And Confer Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Wells Fargo Improperly And Prematurely Terminated The Rule30(b)(6) Deposition of Sohlberg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Wells Fargo Did Not Produce An Adequate 30(b)(6) Witness. . . . . . 7
i. Sohlberg Conceded She Had No KnowledgeRegarding Several Deposition Topics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ii. Defendant Should Produce The Wells FargoEmployees Sohlberg Identified As Having TheRequisite Knowledge For The Rule 30(b)(6)Deposition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Counsel For Wells Fargo Lodged An Extraordinary Amount OfImproper Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
i. Counsel for Wells Fargo Improperly InstructedDeponent Not To Answer.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ii. Counsel For Wells Fargo Repeatedly Made ImproperSpeaking Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
D. Wells Fargo Should Be Required To Bear Appropriate CostsAssociated With All Subsequent 30(b)(6) Depositions. . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) i
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:8277
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Case Page(s)
Adams v. Allianceone2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56357 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Alexander v. FBI186 F.R.D. 137(D.D.C. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8
Amezaga v. Amezaga195 B.R. 221 (D.P.R. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9921 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 15
Baykeeper v. Int’l Metals Ekco2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69183 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd.253 F.R.D. 524 (C.D. Cal. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 10
Biovail Labs., Inc. v. Anchen Pharm., Inc.233 F.R.D. 648 (C.D. Cal. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco196 F.R.D. 362 (N.D. Cal. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 12
EEOC v. Boeing Co.2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 29107 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FCC v. Mizuho Medy Co.257 F.R.D. 679 (S.D. Cal. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Constr. Co.251 F.R.D. 534 (D. Nev. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
In re Toys “R” Us-Delaware2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130884 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . 5, 12
Jadwin v. Abraham2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116780 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
JSR Micro, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp.` 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40185 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Paige v. Consumer Programs248 F.R.D. 272 (C.D. Cal. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Paparelli v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.108 F.R.D. 727 (D.C. Mass. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) ii
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:8278
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
Pioneer Drive, LLC v. Nissan Diesel Am., Inc.262 F.R.D. 552 (D. Mont. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Resolution Trust Corp. v. S. Union Co.985 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. Tex. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Roberson v. Bair242 F.R.D. 130 (D.D.C. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Saunders v. Knight2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3387 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Shapiro v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16286 (N.D. Cal. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Tacori Enters. v. Beverly Jewellery Co.253 F.R.D. 577 (C.D. Cal. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Statutes & Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 6-9, 14, 15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) iii
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:8279
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
I. INTRODUCTION
After exhausting all attempts to obtain a suitable outcome with Defendant
Wells Fargo (“Defendant” or “Wells Fargo”), Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Certified
Class, move to compel Wells Fargo to (1) offer Ms. Mary Sohlberg (herein
“Sohlberg”) for the continuation of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition
following Defendant’s unilateral early termination; (2) to compel Wells Fargo to
produce sufficient Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, due to Sohlberg’s admitted lack of
knowledge on numerous noticed topics (many of the appropriate witnesses were
identified by Sohlberg); and (3) to require Defendant to bear appropriate costs
associated with the additional depositions.
Following the Court’s order to compel Wells Fargo to produce one or more
30(b)(6) witnesses, Plaintiffs issued a new Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice in
November 2011, identifying 25 topics. See Declaration of Jordanna G. Thigpen
(“Thigpen Decl.”), Exh. 1. The parties subsequently met and conferred regarding
certain topics and Plaintiffs agreed not to question the deponent(s) regarding
Topics 24 and 25. Defendant’s deposition was set for February 8, 2012.
Defendant produced Sohlberg as the sole witness for the remaining 23 topics.
However, Sohlberg’s testimony demonstrated that she lacks the requisite
knowledge to be an adequate corporate representative for all 23 deposition topics,
as required by Rule 30(b)(6). Further, Defendant’s counsel obstructed the
deposition by instructing the deponent not to answer on improper grounds, and
unilaterally terminated the deposition with time under the federal rules remaining.
Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendant, attempting to resolve this
discovery dispute without the Court’s intervention. However, Plaintiffs simply
cannot accept Defendant’s conditions in offering Sohlberg again, as they are
unreasonable, unjustified, and a violation of Federal Rules. Plaintiffs respectfully
request the Court to order Wells Fargo to produce Sohlberg for the remaining time
permitted under Rule 30(d)(1) and to produce suitable 30(b)(6) witnesses for
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 2
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:8280
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
subsequent deposition on the noticed topics for which she conceded lack of
knowledge.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Summary of Action
Plaintiffs bring this action for breach of contract against Defendant Wells
Fargo and Bank of New York Mellon (collectively, “Defendants”) on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased notes offered by five special purpose
corporations (“SPCs”) – MP II, MP III, MP IV, MP V, and MP VI – owned by
Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Medical Capital”). Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants improperly disbursed millions of dollars to Medical Capital in
breach of their contractual duties to investors.
Medical Capital solicited approximately $2 billion from over 20,000
investors. While Medical Capital stated that such funds would be used to
purchase discounted medical receivables and health care related non-receivable
assets, in reality, Medical Capital did no such thing.
As trustees, Defendants were required to oversee the funding of the SPCs
and to ensure investor funds were being properly used by Medical Capital.
Instead, Defendants ignored the contract terms in the Note Issuance and Security
Agreements (“NISAs”), and freely distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to
Medical Capital for “administrative” duties in a manner not permitted. As a result
of Defendants’ breach, approximately $1 billion in Notes held by thousands of
investors are now in default. See generally In re Medical Capital Sec. Litig., Case
No. SA-10-ML-20145 DOC (RNBx), Dkt. 147, Plaintiffs’ Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint (“TAC”).
B. The 30(b)(6) Deposition
Plaintiffs originally served Wells Fargo with a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
Notice on November 29, 2010, setting the deposition for December 20, 2010. See
Thigpen Decl., Exh. 2. Defendant objected to the Deposition Notice and refused
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 3
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:8281
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
to produce any witness. See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 3. Plaintiffs moved to compel
on July 22, 2011. See In re Medical Capital Sec. Litig., Case No. SA-10-ML-
02145 DOC (RNBx), Dkt. 235. On September 29, 2011, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel after consideration of the Special Master’s Report
and Recommendations. See Id., Dkt. 276.
Pursuant to the Order, a new Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice was issued on
November 28, 2011. See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 1. On December 13, 2011,
Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendant regarding certain topics and
scheduled the deposition for February 8, 2012.
On February 8, 2012, Defendant produced Sohlberg, representing her to be
knowledgeable as to 23 deposition topics. The deposition started at 10:11 a.m. It
became readily apparent that Sohlberg lacked the requisite knowledge on a
number of topics. See e.g., Thigpen Decl., Exh. 4, Sohlberg Tr. 29:2-30:1.
Further, during the course of the deposition, counsel for Wells Fargo lodged a
number of improper objections impeding Plaintiffs’ questioning of Sohlberg. See
Id., Sohlberg Tr. 260:14-261:20. At 6:18 p.m., counsel for Wells Fargo expressed
concern as to the length of the deposition. See Id., Sohlberg Tr. 300:6-16. The
videographer informed the parties that approximately one hour remained, but
Plaintiffs’ counsel offered to finish the Rule 30(b)(6) in 30 minutes. See Id.
Instead, at 6:27 p.m., counsel informed Plaintiffs of Defendant’s unilateral
decision to remove Sohlberg and terminate the deposition. See Id., Sohlberg Tr.
300:25-301:6.
C. The Parties’ Meet And Confer Efforts
On February 15, 2012, Plaintiffs initiated meet and confer efforts. See
Thigpen Decl., Exh. 5. Defendant responded on February 21, 2012, setting forth
several conditions should Defendant offer Sohlberg again: (1) the deposition be
taken by telephone or video-conference; (2) the questioning be limited to topics
not previously covered; (3) advance notice of the topics to be discussed be given;
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 4
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:8282
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
and (4) Plaintiffs bear all costs for such further examination. See Thigpen Decl.,
Exh. 6. Plaintiffs found these conditions unreasonable and unjust, as none of
them allay Plaintiffs’ concerns and further, in particular Sohlberg’s unsuitability in
serving as Wells Fargo’s witness on the designated topics. As a result, Plaintiffs
informed Defendant on March 14, 2012 that Plaintiffs intend to file this motion to
compel. See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 7.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Wells Fargo Improperly And Prematurely Terminated The Rule30(b)(6) Deposition of Sohlberg
At a minimum, Plaintiffs are entitled to a full seven hours of deposition
testimony from Sohlberg. Wells Fargo attempted to justify their early termination
by claiming “nothing in the text of the Rule itself requires that normal breaks be
excluded from the calculation of seven hours.” See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 6.
Defendant is clearly mistaken.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(d)(1) states that “[u]nless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7
hours.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1); see also Paige v. Consumer Programs, 248
F.R.D. 272, 274 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Contemplating reasonable breaks, the only time
to be counted against the seven-hour limitation is the time occupied by actual
deposition. Saunders v. Knight, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3387, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
4, 2007); see also Baykeeper v. Int’l Metals Ekco, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69183,
at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009) (“seven hours of deposition time, [is] exclusive of
breaks and meals periods); In re Toys “R” Us-Delaware, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
130884, at *34 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2010) (same); Roberson v. Bair, 242 F.R.D.
130, 138 (D.D.C. 2007) (same).
Plaintiffs had 55 minutes remaining on the record before Defendant
terminated the deposition. Defendant attempts to convolute the situation by also
claiming the concern was due to Sohlberg being an “older woman who had flown
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 5
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:8283
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
in from Minnesota and was on Central Time” and that she was “exhausted.” See
Thigpen Decl., Exh. 6. While Plaintiffs can sympathize with Sohlberg’s fatigue, it
provides no excuse for both improperly terminating a deposition and refusing to
reconvene. Defendant had more than sufficient notice of the deposition date and
time and could have easily remedied any concerns prior to the commencement of
the deposition, for example by requesting an earlier start time. Defendant chose
not to.
Further, when pressed by Defendant to conclude the deposition, Plaintiffs
offered to compromise by limiting further questioning to 30 minutes. See Thigpen
Decl., Exh. 4, Sohlberg Tr. 300:6-14. Defendant, rejected Plaintiffs’ proposal.
Unequivocally, “[a]t any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party
may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad
faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the
deponent or party.” Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Tyco Int’l
Ltd., 253 F.R.D. 524, 526 fn. 2 (C.D. Cal. 2008); FCC v. Mizuho Medy Co., 257
F.R.D. 679, 681 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (“the only grounds to terminate or limit a
deposition is if it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably
annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.”) (emphasis added)
(internal citations omitted).
Unlike the situations set forth above, Defense Counsel did not remove
Sohlberg due to Plaintiffs Counsel’s conduct. The termination of Sohlberg’s
deposition was just that, “she [was] very, very tired.” See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 4,
Sohlberg Tr. 301:1-4. Plainly, this situation is insufficient to warrant Defendant’s
unilateral termination of Sohlberg’s 30(b)(6) deposition.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 6
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:8284
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
B. Wells Fargo Did Not Produce An Adequate 30(b)(6) Witness
i. Sohlberg Conceded She Had No Knowledge RegardingSeveral Deposition Topics
A corporation must “designate one or more officers, directors, or managing
agents . . . [who] must testify about information known or reasonable available to
the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). While Rule 30(b)(6) is not meant to
be a memory contest, the corporation must “make a conscientious, good-faith
effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to
prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated
subject matter.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9921,
at *13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012); see also Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior
Univ., 253 F.R.D. at 526 (good faith effort must be made in designating
knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions); Alexander v. FBI, 186
F.R.D. 137, 141 (D.D.C. 1998) (same).
Sohlberg admitted without equivocation that she had no knowledge
regarding several specifically identified deposition topics, including but not
limited to, Deposition Topic Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 9. See, e.g., Thigpen Decl., Exh. 4,
Sohlberg Tr. 29:2-30:1; 30:4-22; 31:20-23; 32:15-23; 36:5-11; 37:7-38:15, 42:8-
43:1. For many others, including Topic Nos. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and
23, she was unsure if she was knowledgeable, and identified other employees that
were more knowledgeable and better able to answer questions. See, e.g., Thigpen
Decl., Exh. 4, Sohlberg Tr. 45:23-47:3; 47:6-48:18; 49:4-15; 49:18-50:19; 50:20-
51:15; 51:16-53:3; 53:6-25; 54:3-17; 55:16-56:1; 56:3-19.1
Sohlberg’s inadequacy as a witness was confirmed when she was
questioned about basic facts in the case, such as the documents Medical Capital
Attached to the Thigpen Decl. is a chart listing demonstrating the specific1
topics for which Sohlberg lacked the requisite knowledge and, if made, heridentification of the appropriate witnesses. The transcript pages are provided assupport for the chart. See Thigpen Decl. Exh. 4 .
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 7
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:8285
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
submitted to the Trustees to obtain Administrative Fees and other disbursements
of trust assets. Sohlberg was not familiar with a single document used to obtain
disbursements, and could not provide any substantive responses to Plaintiffs’
questions regarding the reports and the documents Wells Fargo was required to
receive and make pursuant to the provisions set forth in the NISAs. Sohlberg
frequently “d[id]n’t know,” “didn’t prepare to this level of detail” or simply stated
that she simply “had not seen this form before.” See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 4, see
also, e.g., Sohlberg Tr. 193:17-22; 211:23-212:3; 215:4-11; 223:2-9; 234:15-
235:11; 238:2-21; 246:16-247:1. She had no knowledge whatsoever about the
basic administration of the Medical Capital accounts, including fees that Wells
Fargo charged to Medical Capital or made in connection with its investments of
Medical Capital funds. See Id., Sohlberg Tr. 119:12-120:6; 137:11-21; 141:1-11;
143:9-147:18.
As the transcript demonstrates, Sohlberg repeatedly admitted to lacking the
knowledge necessary to answer Plaintiffs’ questions. Defendant strategically
chose an individual who could not testify to anything beyond what she minimally
learned from others and what she observed from reading one NISA, essentially
wasting Plaintiffs’ resources, obtaining a free preview of Plaintiffs’ work product,
and denying Plaintiffs of any meaningful opportunity to obtain testimony on
critical topics. Accordingly, the Court should require Defendant to produce
adequate 30(b)(6) witnesses, who can sufficiently answer questions on deposition
topics that Sohlberg could not, including Topic Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, and 23.
ii. Defendant Should Produce The Wells Fargo EmployeesSohlberg Identified As Having The Requisite KnowledgeFor The Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
Should a witness designated by the corporation be unable to answer
questions regarding matters specified in the deposition notice, the corporation
must immediately designate a new witness. Alexander, 186 F.D.R. at 141; see
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 8
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:8286
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
also Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338, 343 (N.D. Ill.
1995) (“Citibank seems to believe that it can satisfy Rule 30(b)(6) by producing a
witness with only selected information to offer . . . The Federal Rules and this
Court do not countenance self-selecting discovery by either party”); EEOC v.
Boeing Co., 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 29107, at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 2007) (same).
As the transcript evidences, Sohlberg lacked sufficient knowledge on
several deposition topics. When pressed, Sohlberg readily conceded that other
Wells Fargo employees would have more knowledge than she.
Question: Okay. Do you know – is there anyone you can think ofthat might know about any specific report that wasrequired by MPIII.2 that wasn’t required by MPIII.1?
[. . . ]
Answer: Cheryl.
Sohlberg Tr. 181:5-9 (emphasis added) (objection omitted).
Question: Do you know if Medical Capital turned in the netcollateral coverage ratio reports for MPII.1 every monthas required?
Answer: I don’t know.Question: Who would know that?Answer: Cheryl Zimmerman.Question: Anyone else?Answer: Beth Walker.
Sohlberg Tr. 202:4-11 (emphasis added).
Question: Okay. Do you know if Wells Fargo ever issued a noticeof default to Medical Capital for failure to turn in a netcollateral coverage ratio report?
Answer: I don’t know.Question: Who would know that?Answer: Beth Walker.
Sohlberg Tr. 214:23-215:3 (emphasis added).
Question: Do you know if Wells Fargo ever rejected any of theUCC schedules that were turned in?
Answer: I don’t know.Question: Who would know that?Answer: Cheryl Zimmerman.
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 9
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:8287
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
Sohlberg Tr. 216:6-10 (emphasis added).2
Sohlberg’s concessions regarding the inadequacy of her knowledge strongly
suggests other Wells Fargo employees would have been better suited to appear as
30(b)(6) witnesses. Given the number of times Sohlberg identified Cheryl
Zimmerman and Elizabeth “Beth” Walker during her deposition, those witnesses
should have been produced for Plaintiffs’ noticed topics. Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the Court order Defendant to produce those witnesses.
C. Counsel For Wells Fargo Lodged An Extraordinary Amount OfImproper Objections
i. Counsel for Wells Fargo Improperly Instructed DeponentNot To Answer
“An objection at the time of the examination – whether to evidence, to a
party’s conduct, . . ., to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect
of the deposition – must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds
. . .” Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 253 F.R.D. at 526. Counsel
may only instruct a deponent not to answer when “necessary to preserve a
privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under
Rule 30(d)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2); see also Shapiro v. Paul Revere Life Ins.
Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16286, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (Rule 30(c)(2)
“provides exclusive grounds for instructing a deponent to not answer”); Detoy v.
City and County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (counsel
“shall refrain from instructing a witness not to answer, except as provided in Rule
30[(c)(2)]”).
Despite clear rules to the contrary, Defense Counsel continuously advised
Sohlberg not to answer, further preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining what little
information Sohlberg could offer. Despite the fact that this case is a breach of
Plaintiffs have detailed some of the numerous times that Sohlberg2
identified other Wells Fargo employees with knowledge of particular topics in thechart attached to Exhibit 4.
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 10
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:8288
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
contract action concerning Defendant’s performance of duties pursuant to the
particular terms of three contracts (the NISAs,) Defense Counsel repeatedly
instructed his client not to answer questions regarding the terms of those contracts,
and continually lodged the related objection that the “document speaks for itself.”
For example:
MS. THIGPEN: Okay. Do you know – is there anyone you can think ofthat might know about any specific report that wasrequired by MP III.2 that wasn’t required by MP III.1?
MR. SOMMER: Objection. The NISAs speak for themselves and sameprior objections.
THE WITNESS: Cheryl.
Sohlberg Tr. 181:5-10.
MS. THIGPEN: Did you have an understanding as to how often MedicalCapital had to make [the net collateral coverage ratio]calculation and provide the calculation to Wells Fargo?
MR. SOMMER: Objection; the document speaks for itself as to what’srequired.
Sohlberg Tr.187:5-9.
MS. THIGPEN: Do you think “shall” is providing an optional form ofaction for the debtor?
MR. SOMMER: Let me object.THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. SOMMER: The meaning of particular provisions of the NISA isoutside of the scope of this – the topics for thisdeposition.
THE WITNESS: Okay.MR. SOMMER: You’re not authorized to testify on behalf of the bank on
that.MS. THIGPEN: Counsel, it’s absolutely not outside the scope. Let’s go
back to Exhibit No. 1 so we can be crystal clear here.MR. SOMMER: We can have an argument about it ...MS. THIGPEN: Turn back to Exhibit No. 1, please.MR. SOMMER: ... my instruction’s going to stand.MS. THIGPEN: Are you instructing her not to answer the question?MR. SOMMER: She’s instructed not to answer about the particular
meaning of particular provisions because it’s notwithin the scope of the topics noticed for thisdeposition.
Sohlberg Tr. 227:11-228:12 (emphasis added).
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 11
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:8289
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
MS. THIGPEN: . . . Were there any reports that Medical – that thetrustee, Wells Fargo, was to provide to Medical Capitalpursuant to the MP III.1 NISA?
MR. SOMMER: It’s outside the scope.THE WITNESS: I can’t answer that question because I’m not
understanding the question and I’m not so sure it’ssomething I – I reviewed. I reviewed the – the governingdocument to determine what specific reports wererequired of Medical Capital.
Sohlberg Tr. 178:24-179:7.
First, such topics were assuredly not outside the scope noticed. See e.g.,
Thigpen Decl., Exh. 1, Topic Nos. 1, 2, 16, 18, 19, and 23. Further, whether or
not a question is outside the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice is not a
valid justification to instruct the deponent not to answer. In re Toys “R” Us-
Delaware, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130884, at *35 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2010); see
also Detoy, 196 F.R.D. 362, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (holding that instructing a
witness not answer a question as it is outside the scope of a 30(b)(6) is improper);
Paparelli v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 108 F.R.D. 727, 731 (D.C. Mass.
1985)(same).
ii. Counsel For Wells Fargo Repeatedly Made ImproperSpeaking Objections
“Speaking objections are prohibited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2)” as “[a]n
objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive
manner.” Jadwin v. Abraham, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116780, at *16 (E.D. Cal.
Aug. 22, 2008); Tacori Enters. v. Beverly Jewellery Co., 253 F.R.D. 577, 580
(C.D. Cal. 2008) (holding Defense Counsel’s use of speaking objections to be
improper); JSR Micro, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40185, at
*20 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) (holding Defendant’s consistent speaking objections
to be improper). Counsel is therefore “prohibited from acting as a intermediary,
interpreting questions, assisting deponent with formulation of the answers or
deciding which questions should be answered. . . .” Amezaga v. Amezaga, 195
B.R. 221, 228 (D.P.R. 1996).
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 12
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:8290
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
Despite Plaintiffs’ effort to remind Defense Counsel of the inappropriate
nature of speaking objections, Defense Counsel ignored Plaintiffs’ warnings and
continued to make lengthy speaking objections throughout the course of the
deposition.
MS. THIGPEN: Okay. And why would they need Wells Fargo services?MR. SOMMER: It calls for speculation. It assumes – sorry, the – lacks
foundation. If you – if you know.MS. THIGPEN: Counsel, your objections are noted. No speaking
objections. I’ve asked you before.
Sohlberg Tr. 75:19-25 (emphasis added).
MS. THIGPEN: Was Wells Fargo required to give a notice of default foran overdue net collateral coverage ratio report?
MR. SOMMER: Objection. It calls for legal conclusion and calls fortestimony beyond the scope of the deposition topics.
THE WITNESS: I can’t answer that.MS. THIGPEN: Why? You don’t know or ....THE WITNESS: Because it calls for a legal conclusion. MS. THIGPEN: Yes. Unfortunately, that’s counsel’s objection, but that’s
not a – that isn’t a proper response. I mean, if you don’tunderstand the question, then you can say. I can try torephrase, but...
MR. SOMMER: Well, it calls for speculation if – and also it’s beyond thescope if you –
MS. THIGPEN: No speaking objections.MR. SOMMER: in the course of your investigationMS. THIGPEN: No speaking objections, counsel.MR. SOMMER: If in the course of your investigation you are able to
answer that question on – MS. THIGPEN: Counsel – MR. SOMMER: – behalf of the bank – MS. THIGPEN: – you’ve lodged your objection.
Sohlberg Tr. 200:14-201:13 (emphasis added).
These instances by no means provide an exhaustive list of Defense
Counsel’s disregard for the discovery rules during Sohlberg’s Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition.
Defense Counsel’s persistent assertions of speaking objections and
improper instructions not to answer prevented Plaintiffs from obtaining testimony
and unduly prolonged the deposition examination. Such indifference to the
Federal Rules should not be ignored or tolerated.
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 13
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:8291
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
D. Wells Fargo Should Be Required To Bear Appropriate CostsAssociated With All Subsequent 30(b)(6) Depositions
Rule 37(b) permits the Court to impose sanctions, including the payment of
reasonable expenses, upon a party who “fails, after being served with proper
notice, to appear for that person’s deposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). By
producing an unprepared witness, it is “tantamount to failure to appear.” Great
Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Constr. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 542 (D. Nev. 2008);
Adams v. Allianceone, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56357, at *26 (S.D. Cal. May 25,
2011). Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A) provide that if a motion to compel is
granted, the court shall award reasonable costs associated with the motion, such as
costs attendant to subsequent depositions. Biovail Labs., Inc. v. Anchen Pharm.,
Inc., 233 F.R.D. 648, 653-654 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (requiring payment of costs
associated with second deposition following counsel’s improper early termination
and obstreperous conduct).
As described, Wells Fargo terminated the deposition early, produced an
unprepared and inadequate witness, and limited the deponent’s testimony through
improper objections and instructions not to answer.
In demanding Plaintiffs cover the costs of further examination, Defendant
seemingly overlooked the fact that Plaintiffs would not have been required to bear
costs of a subsequent 30(b)(6) deposition of Sohlberg had Defendant not
prematurely terminated her deposition. Nor would Plaintiffs have had to incur
costs of additional 30(b)(6) depositions had Defendant originally proffered
knowledgeable witnesses. Defendant’s unreasonable request is further affirmation
that Wells Fargo assumes no fault in their behavior.
Rule 30(b)(6) depositions are meant to ensure efficient discovery by placing
the onus on the corporation to identify witnesses. Pioneer Drive, LLC v. Nissan
Diesel Am., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 552, 558 (D. Mont. 2009). Some parties, however,
choose to abuse the process, rather than make a proper designation from the
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 14
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:8292
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
outset. Resolution Trust Corp. v. S. Union Co., 985 F.2d 196, 197 (5th Cir. Tex.
1993).
Defendant’s designation of Sohlberg was nothing more than a tactic to
burden Plaintiffs with the preparation for and costs of deposing an inadequate
witness. In conjunction with Defense Counsel’s overly obstructive conduct during
the deposition, Plaintiffs were not given a fair opportunity to obtain any
meaningful testimony on critical matters for this action. If the deponent is “not
knowledgeable about relevant facts, and the principal has failed to designate [a]
knowledgeable ... witness, then the appearance is, for all practical purposes, no
appearance at all.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9921, at *15 fn. 5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012) (citing Resolution Trust Corp., 985
F.2d at 197).
Given Defendant’s uncooperative and inappropriate behavior, Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Special Master recommend that Defendant bear the
costs associated with (1) the continuation of Sohlberg’s deposition and (2) the
taking of subsequent Rule 30(b)(6) depositions on the topics set forth in the
November 28, 2011 Deposition Notice. See Thigpen Decl., Exh. 1. Such costs
should include, for each deposition, the costs of (1) a court reporter and
videographer; (3) one copy of the transcript for Plaintiffs; (4) travel, including
hotel and airfare, for Plaintiffs’ counsel to attend the depositions.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
Special Master recommend that: (1) Sohlberg be produced for the remaining time
of her deposition, as permitted under Rule 30(d)(1); (2) Defendant produce the
appropriate Wells Fargo employees Cheryl Zimmerman and Elizabeth Walker, as
identified by Sohlberg, for each of the deposition topics Sohlberg lacked
knowledge of; and (3) Defendant bear the costs of all subsequent Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions.
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 15
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:8293
vLA W O FFIC ES
COTCHETT,PITRE, &
MCCARTHY, LLP
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
Dated: March 28, 2012 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
By: /s/ Jordanna G. Thigpen Jordanna G. Thigpen
MILBERG LLPJEFF S. WESTERMANDAVID E. AZAR (218319)MICHIYO M. FURUKAWA (234121)One California Plaza300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900Los Angeles, CA 90071
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
MINAMI TAMAKIDerek G. Howard (118082)Bethany Caracuzzo (190687)360 Post Street, 8th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94108Telephone: (415) 788-9000Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIBERTYMichael D. Liberty (136088)1290 Howard Avenue, Suite 303Burlingame, CA 94010Telephone: (650) 685-8085Facsimile: (650) 685-8086
AITKEN*AITKEN*COHNDarren O. AitkenCasey R. Johnson3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800Santa Ana, Ca 92707Telephone: (714) 434-1424Facsimile: (714) 434-3600
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Members of Plaintiffs’Executive Committee
MT. TO COMPEL & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, LEAD CASE NO. SA ML 10-2145 DOC (RNBx) 16
Case 8:10-ml-02145-DOC -RNB Document 310 Filed 03/28/12 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:8294
Recommended