ABN Corporation v. Groupe Pelm International Corporation

Background

The case had been stayed while the court addressed the disqualification of counsel. The stay was lifted. Default had been entered against Groupe PELM International Corporation, and the court was considering whether to enter default against Christian Pellegrini. Victoria Brieant and the Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant had previously represented Groupe PELM and Pellegrini, but they were disqualified as counsel. The Brieant Defendants had their own counsel and were not in default.

The court reviewed four discovery letter briefs that had been filed before the stay. Discovery is the process through which parties obtain information and documents relevant to a case.

September 27, 2024 Discovery Letter (ECF No. 93)

The plaintiffs sought interrogatory answers and documents from Groupe PELM and Pellegrini, who the opinion says are located in Canada. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs could obtain discovery only through formal requests sent through diplomatic or judicial channels.

The court did not decide the dispute on that issue. It concluded that the dispute was moot as to Groupe PELM because default had been entered. Under Ninth Circuit precedent discussed in the order, a defaulted defendant is treated like a nonparty for discovery, and the interrogatories and document requests at issue may be served only on parties. The plaintiffs’ request to compel responses from Groupe PELM was therefore DENIED, without prejudice to filing a new letter if Groupe PELM’s default is later set aside.

The court also DENIED, without prejudice to filing a new letter, the plaintiffs’ request to compel responses from Pellegrini. The court explained that Pellegrini had not yet appeared, either without a lawyer or through new counsel, and that his deadline to show why default should not be entered was August 8, 2025. If he were allowed to proceed, the plaintiffs would first have to confer with him or his new counsel before raising the dispute again.

November 4, 2024 Discovery Letter (ECF No. 95)

This letter concerned interrogatories and document requests served on the Brieant Defendants. The court ordered those defendants to provide verifications for their responses immediately and no later than July 18, 2025.

The letter also involved assertions of attorney-client privilege concerning the GP Defendants. The court declined to decide the merits of any privilege dispute while Pellegrini’s status remained uncertain, in part because the current record contained arguments from the disqualified former counsel but not from unconflicted counsel for the GP Defendants.

The court found that the remaining disputes about the Brieant Defendants’ responses, document production, and privilege log were not presented in enough detail for an informed ruling. It ordered the parties to meet and confer and then file either a proposed briefing schedule or a joint statement describing each side’s position by July 18, 2025.

December and February Discovery Letters (ECF Nos. 102 and 115)

One letter concerned Groupe PELM’s request to remove an attorneys’-eyes-only confidentiality designation from material involving one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. The other concerned Groupe PELM’s request for further discovery responses from Jimmie Williams, who had also been a third-party defendant to claims brought by Groupe PELM.

Because Groupe PELM’s Third-Party Complaint had been dismissed and default had been entered, the court concluded that Groupe PELM was no longer an active party. The court DENIED, without prejudice, Groupe PELM’s requests in both letters, allowing renewal if its default were set aside or its Third-Party Complaint were reinstated.

Disposition

The court’s final order states that the plaintiffs’ requests to compel further discovery responses from the GP Defendants and Groupe PELM’s requests concerning confidentiality and further discovery were DENIED. The Brieant Defendants were ordered to provide the missing verifications by July 18, 2025. The parties were also required by that date to submit a filing addressing how the remaining issues from ECF No. 95 should be presented. The court vacated the July 16, 2025 discovery status conference and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Pellegrini.