De Fontbrune v. Wofsy
- Edward Davila
- 5:13-cv-05957
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In De Fontbrune v. Wofsy, Judge Davila ordered the parties to explain whether further discovery and dispositive motions should be allowed after remand.
The parties—Yves Sicre de Fontbrune, Alan Wofsy, and the other defendants—were required to respond to the court’s order concerning further discovery and dispositive motions.
What happened
De Fontbrune v. Wofsy returned to the district court after the Ninth Circuit reversed a summary-judgment ruling on one defense and affirmed rulings concerning the defendants’ notice and fraud defenses. The district court had previously found factual disputes on those defenses and on the due process defense.
The defendants asked to conduct additional discovery, proposing document requests, interrogatories, and at least one deposition. The court ordered both sides to explain in written responses whether further discovery and dispositive motions should be permitted.
The court did not yet decide whether to allow the requested discovery or motions. Judge Davila required responses of no more than eight pages by May 26, 2023, and said he would then consider the discovery request.
The detailed version
- De Fontbrune v. Wofsy · No. 5:13-cv-05957
- Edward Davila
- May 12, 2023
Background
The defendants previously moved for summary judgment—a request for judgment without a trial—on eight defenses. On September 12, 2019, the district court granted summary judgment based on one defense. It also found genuine disputes of material fact, meaning factual disagreements that could affect the outcome, concerning the defendants’ notice, fraud, and due process defenses, so the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on those defenses.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the defense that had prevailed. It affirmed the district court’s determinations concerning the notice and fraud defenses. The opinion states that the Ninth Circuit did not address the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the due process defense.
Requested Discovery
After the case returned to the district court, the defendants requested additional discovery on the remaining notice, fraud, and due process defenses. At the court’s invitation, they proposed ten requests for production, four interrogatories, and at least one deposition.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause, meaning to explain in writing, why the court should or should not permit further discovery and dispositive motions. Each party’s response was limited to eight pages and was due by May 26, 2023. The court stated that it would then consider the defendants’ request for further discovery. The order did not decide whether further discovery or dispositive motions would be allowed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.