Marani v. Cramer
- Laurel Beeler
- 4:19-cv-05538
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Marani v. Cramer, Judge Beeler granted discovery from four defendants and recommended a six-week deadline extension.
Kevin Marani and the four Cramer defendants affected by the discovery order; the scheduling recommendation also concerned discovery involving Harvey Flemming.
What happened
In Marani v. Cramer, Kevin Marani alleges that 11 defendants carried out an international investment-fraud and money-laundering scheme against him. Four Cramer defendants, who were representing themselves, had not participated recently or responded to Marani’s written discovery requests.
Marani asked the court to require those four defendants to provide discovery, extend the case deadlines by 11 weeks, and award him the fees and costs of bringing the motion. He separately sought an 11-week extension for discovery from another defendant, Harvey Flemming.
The court granted the motion to require the four Cramer defendants to participate in discovery and warned that they could face sanctions if they did not. Judge Beeler recommended extending the deadlines by six weeks, but the provided opinion text does not show the ruling on Marani’s request for fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Marani v. Cramer · No. 4:19-cv-05538
- Laurel Beeler
- June 16, 2023
Background
Kevin Marani alleges that the 11 defendants carried out “a sophisticated international investment fraud and money laundering scheme” against him. The opinion states that Marani lives in California and that most defendants live in Canada. Michael, Florence, Mark, and Scott Cramer were representing themselves and had recently not participated in the case. Michael, Florence, and Mark Cramer were in bankruptcy proceedings in Canada, but they had not asked the court to stay the case.
Discovery motion
Marani moved to compel written discovery from the four Cramer defendants. The requests were served on March 6, 2023, and the defendants had not responded. The opinion says they had answered an earlier complaint but had not answered the operative complaint. In letters to the court, the Cramers stated that Michael had a private joint-venture agreement with Marani, that the discovery requests were based on what they called a false Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act premise, and that only Michael had been involved with Marani.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), parties may obtain discovery about nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. The court granted Marani’s motion to compel. It ordered the Cramer defendants to participate in the litigation and warned that they risked sanctions if they did not do so.
Fees and costs
Marani also requested the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to compel. The court discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), which generally requires an award of reasonable expenses when a motion to compel is granted, subject to stated exceptions. The opinion also noted a local rule requiring itemized supporting declarations. The provided text cuts off while describing Marani’s submissions, so it does not show the court’s disposition of the fees-and-costs request.
Scheduling
Marani requested an 11-week extension of the case deadlines for the written discovery and later depositions. The court recommended to the trial court that the deadlines be extended by six weeks, to allow time for depositions in Canada while avoiding moving the trial date into February 2024. The opinion also states that the trial court had denied Marani’s separate request for an 11-week extension concerning discovery from Harvey Flemming but would consider a narrower extension based on the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Disposition
The discovery motion was granted as to compelling written discovery from the four Cramer defendants. The court recommended a six-week deadline extension. The supplied opinion text does not reveal the ruling on attorney’s fees and costs or whether the trial court adopted the scheduling recommendation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.