United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.

Background

The court considered two requests seeking discovery-related relief against defendant Mykalai Kontilai. Intervenor-defendant Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc. (JRF) asked the court to require Kontilai to answer interrogatories and document requests that had originally been served by Los Angeles Dodgers LLC before JRF replaced the Dodgers in the case. Kontilai had not timely responded.

Kontilai argued that JRF could not enforce discovery requests that it had not served itself. He also argued that he should not have to respond until amended pleadings were filed, because he believed he could be prejudiced in making objections about relevance. The court rejected both arguments. It explained that when one party is substituted for another under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, the parties’ rights and obligations remain unchanged. The court therefore treated the Dodgers’ discovery requests as adopted by JRF. It also held that the existing complaints and answers governed relevance objections and that a possible or pending request to amend pleadings did not suspend discovery obligations.

Holders’ Application

The intervening plaintiffs who called themselves the “Holders” sought relief concerning an agreed extension of Kontilai’s deadline to respond to discovery. They based their request partly on statements Kontilai made when seeking an additional extension. The court found that the parties had not first discussed the issue with all relevant parties as required by paragraph 2.A of the court’s Individual Practices. It therefore denied the Holders’ request without prejudice to a renewed application after that discussion.

Ruling

The court ordered Kontilai to respond by May 6, 2020, to all discovery requests originally served by the Dodgers, with JRF standing in the Dodgers’ place for those requests. The order states that this resolved Docket No. 294. The court denied the Holders’ request in Docket No. 297 without prejudice to a new application complying with paragraph 2.A of the Individual Practices. The court also stated that Kontilai, rather than the Holders, was responsible for seeking an extension and that he was then in violation of his discovery obligations. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, a United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.