Henry et al v. Rizzolo et al, No. 2:2008cv00635 - Document 437 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 371 Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions for Defendant Rick Rizzolos Failure to Comply With Order, as follows: Plaintiffs request that a default judgment be entered against Defendant Rick Rizzolo pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37 (b) is denied, without prejudice. Defendant Rick Rizzolo shall produce to Plaintiffs complete bank statements for the RLR Trust Account at the Capital Security Bank in the Cook Islands, or any other financial institution acco unt for that trust, from the date of the inception of such account(s) up to the present or through the date that the bank account(s) was closed. Defendant is further directed to takeimmediate action to request and/or direct the trustees of the the RL R Trust to produce the account statements. Unless extended by stipulation of the parties or court order, such statements shall be produced to Plaintiffs on or before August 25, 2010. Defendant Rick Rizzolo is ordered to pay $1,000.00 to Pla intiffs, as and for reasonable attorneys fees on the motion for sanctions, based on his failure to comply with the Courts order requiring him to produce a complete copy of the RLR Trusts bank account statements. Continued failure to comply with this portion of the Courts order will result in imposition of more severe sanctions, which could include granting Plaintiffs request for entry of adefault judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadline in this case is extended untilOctober 8, 2010 for purposes of permitting Plaintiffs to take Mr. Rizzolos deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/10/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henry et al v. Rizzolo et al Doc. 437 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 KIRK AND AMY HENRY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FREDRICK RIZZOLO, aka RICK RIZZOLO, et al.,) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:08-cv-00635-PMP-GWF ORDER Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions – #371 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions for Defendant 15 Rick Rizzolo’s Failure to Comply With Order (#371), filed on May 11, 2010; Defendant’s 16 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions for Failure to Comply With Order 17 (#389), filed on June 2, 2010; and Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions 18 (#397), filed on June 8, 2010. The Court conducted a hearing in this matter on June 14, 2010. At 19 the conclusion of that hearing, the Court directed counsel to supplement the record with the 20 depositions and documents referenced in the attorneys’ arguments. Plaintiffs filed their 21 Supplement to the Motion for Sanctions (#404) on June 21, 2010. Defendant filed supplemental 22 discovery responses both before and after the hearing. See Docket Nos. 379, 394, 398, 406, and 23 416. 24 25 BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Kirk and Amy Henry filed an underlying Nevada district court lawsuit against 26 Frederick Rizzolo, aka Rick Rizzolo, and the Power Company, Inc., d/b/a The Crazy Horse Too in 27 October 2001 to recover damages for severe bodily injuries that Kirk Henry sustained on 28 September 20, 2001 when he was allegedly assaulted and battered by agents of Mr. Rizzolo and the Dockets.Justia.com 1 Crazy Horse Too. The Henrys subsequently entered into a $10 million settlement with Rick 2 Rizzolo and the Power Company in July 2006. The settlement agreement provided for an initial 3 payment of $1 million and that the $9 million balance would be paid from the proceeds of the sale 4 of the Crazy Horse Too nightclub which was seized by the Federal Government. The initial 5 payment of $1 million was made to the Henrys. The City of Las Vegas subsequently revoked the 6 business and liquor licenses of the Crazy Horse Too, however, and the nightclub has not yet been 7 sold. Accordingly, the Henrys have not received the $9 million balance owed under the settlement 8 agreement. 9 In this action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Rick and Lisa Rizzolo engaged in fraudulent 10 transfers of their community assets in an attempt to shield them from Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs 11 allege that shortly after the Henrys filed the underlying suit in October 2001, Rick and Lisa Rizzolo 12 formed a “so-called ‘family trust’” to which they transferred their assets. Complaint (#1), ¶ 13. 13 Plaintiffs further allege that the Rizzolos entered into a sham 2005 divorce decree which awarded 14 Lisa Rizzolo “nearly every listed community asset” except for the Crazy Horse Too which 15 Defendants knew would be subject to forfeiture to the Government. Id., ¶ 15. Rick Rizzolo also 16 agreed to pay Lisa Rizzolo $5 million in alimony, secured by his interest in the Crazy Horse Too, 17 with the knowledge that he would default on this obligation and thereby further diminish the assets 18 that would be available to pay damages to the Henrys. Id., ¶ 17. Plaintiffs also allege that Rick 19 Rizzolo “engaged in numerous cash transactions involving millions of dollars in the form of 20 ‘loans’, gambling ‘debts’ and other third party transactions, all of which were designed to further 21 obscure and conceal the nature, extent and location of his assets.” Id., ¶ 18. Defendants deny these 22 allegations and assert that at the time of the Rizzolo’s 2005 divorce, the Crazy Horse Too business 23 was worth substantially more than the property received by Lisa Rizzolo. Defendants also argue 24 that proceeds from the forfeiture sale of the Crazy Horse Too would have been sufficient to pay the 25 Henrys’ settlement, but for the Government’s failure to preserve its business licenses. 26 ... 27 ... 28 ... 2 1 Plaintiffs served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Defendant 2 Rick Rizzolo on October 1, 2008.1 Mr. Rizzolo, who was represented at that time by the law firm 3 of Patti, Sgro & Lewis, objected to most of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on the grounds that they 4 were irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mr. Rizzolo 5 served a supplemental response to the requests for production of documents on December 8, 2008 6 in which he restated his objections, but also produced some of his federal income tax returns in 7 response to Request No. 1. He also apparently produced some documents relating to investment 8 accounts in response to Request No. 7 and some documents relating to bank accounts in response 9 to Request No. 23. 10 On December 9, 2008 Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Mr. Rizzolo to respond to the 11 discovery requests. Prior to the hearing on that motion, Mr. Rizzolo served supplemental answers 12 to interrogatories on December 29, 2008. Mr. Rizzolo again objected to the interrogatories, but 13 provided answers to certain of them. In answer to Interrogatory No. 8, which asked for information 14 regarding his current bank accounts, Mr. Rizzolo stated he had an account at Nevada State Bank 15 which had a balance of $2,178.06, but which had been seized by the IRS. He stated that no other 16 accounts exist. According to his answer to Interrogatory No. 9, Mr. Rizzolo also produced some 17 documents regarding other bank accounts he had held in the past. 18 Interrogatory No. 12 asked Defendant to list any property he holds or previously held as 19 trustee of a testamentary or inter vivos trust since September 20, 2001, and to identify any trust he 20 created or contributed to for the benefit of others since September 20, 2001. Mr. Rizzolo answered 21 this interrogatory by stating that at one time he and his former wife, Lisa Rizzolo, created a family 22 trust for estate planning purposes. He stated that he was informed that the trust was never funded 23 with assets other than possibly the family home prior the Rizzolo’s 2005 divorce. Mr. Rizzolo 24 stated that he was informed and believed that there was no such trust in existence today, i.e. on the 25 date of his answer. Interrogatory No. 17 asked Mr. Rizzolo whether at any time since September 26 27 28 1 Copies of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and Defendant Rick Rizzolo’s discovery responses were filed as a supplement to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Compel (#279) on March 2, 2010. See Supplement to Renewed Motion to Compel (#301). 3 1 20, 2001, he had entered into any transaction with his former spouse or any other relative involving 2 the transfer, conveyance, assignment or other disposition of his real or personal property. Mr. 3 Rizzolo answered this Interrogatory by stating that after the divorce he had no knowledge of what 4 his former wife did with her assets. 5 The undersigned magistrate judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel without prejudice on 6 February 3, 2009 based on his doubt whether Plaintiffs had a viable claim under the Nevada 7 Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (“UFTA”). The district judge overruled that order on March 23, 8 2009, however, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Order (#117). On April 20, 2009, Mr. 9 Rizzolo, who was no longer represented by counsel, served a handwritten supplement to his 10 answers to interrogatories and requests for production. In answer to Interrogatory No. 6 which 11 asked Mr. Rizzolo to “list any business you have an ownership interest in,” Mr. Rizzolo stated that 12 “I have no interest in any business other than the seized Power Company Inc. Crazy Horse Too and 13 seized RicRiz LLC which owned the shopping center were (sic) Crazy Horse Too is located.” In 14 answer to Interrogatory No. 7, which asked Mr. Rizzolo to list all stocks, bonds or other securities 15 that he owned in any company, firm or corporation, he identified himself as a manager of Lions 16 Limited, LLC which owned a Mercedes automobile valued at fifty to sixty thousand dollars. Mr. 17 Rizzolo again supplemented his answer to Interrogatory No. 12 regarding trusts, by stating that he 18 believed there was a family trust formed years ago by attorney John Dawson, but that the trust was 19 never funded. He also stated that he was previously a trustee for his father Bart Rizzolo, but could 20 no longer serve as a trustee because of his felony conviction. 21 In October 2009, Mr. Rizzolo retained attorney Kenneth Frizzell to represent him in this 22 action. On or about January 4, 2010, Mr. Rizzolo served his Second Supplemental Answers to 23 Plaintiffs’ Request for Production. In response to Request No. 6, Mr. Rizzolo provided statements 24 for bank accounts for Lions Limited Partnership, and statements for certain investment accounts. 25 On January 4, 2010, Mr. Rizzolo also served his Third Supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs’ 26 Interrogatories. Mr. Rizzolo supplemented his previous answers by listing bank accounts and 27 investment accounts which he currently or previously owned, vehicles that he presently or 28 previously owned including a 1955 Corvette automobile that he sold in August 2008, a life 4 1 2 insurance policy on his life owned by Lisa Rizzolo, and his retirement/investment accounts. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to compel answers to 3 interrogatories and requests for production from Mr. Rizzolo. Mr. Rizzolo served his Third 4 Supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production on February 25, 2010. In this 5 supplement Mr. Rizzolo produced a copy of the registration for the Mercedes vehicle owned by 6 Lions Limited, LLC. He also produced partial statements for his American Express and 7 MasterCard charge accounts. He also provided Plaintiffs with a blanket release form to allow 8 them to obtain any other documents which they believe are relevant. On March 12, 2010, the Court 9 granted Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Compel. Order (#314). The Court ordered Mr. Rizzolo to 10 provide additional information and produce documents regarding his bank accounts, credit card 11 accounts and investment accounts. Id., pp. 6-8. The Court also ordered Mr. Rizzolo to provide 12 additional information and documents, to the extent they exist, regarding the August 2008 sale of 13 the 1955 Corvette automobile, automobile insurance policies, loans and documents relating to his 14 living arrangements, and allowances provided to his son. 15 In their renewed motion to compel, Plaintiffs also provided information about the “RLR 16 Trust,” the existence of which has been established during discovery. This trust had an account at 17 the Capital Security Bank Limited, a foreign bank in the Cook Islands located in the South Pacific.2 18 Plaintiffs further state that in 2008 Mr. Rizzolo deposited $990,000 into this account from the 19 proceeds of the sale of his interest in a Philadelphia club. See Motion (#279), pp. 6, 13. The Court 20 ordered that to the extent that Mr. Rizzolo controls “The RLR Trust,” he should be able to obtain 21 trust documents and the trust’s bank account statements, and produce them to Plaintiffs. The 22 Court, accordingly, ordered Defendant to supplement his discovery responses by providing a full 23 and complete answer to Interrogatory No. 12, regarding his former or current interest as trustor, 24 trustee or beneficiary in “The RLR Trust” and to provide all documents in his possession, custody 25 26 27 28 2 Lisa Rizzolo’s trust, the LMR Trust, also has an account in this Cook Islands bank. According to Ms. Rizzolo’s deposition testimony, she sold most of the securities and investment accounts awarded to her in the 2005 divorce and transferred the proceeds to the LMR Trust’s bank account in the Cook Islands. 5 1 or control relating to that trust, including a complete copy of its bank account statements. 2 Alternatively, the Court ordered Mr. Rizzolo to provide the Plaintiffs with a complete statement as 3 to why he is unable to produce documents relating to “The RLR Trust,” including its bank account 4 statements. The Court also ordered Mr. Rizzolo to provide full and complete information about his 5 interest in the Philadelphia club or “enterprise” and the $990,000 he reportedly received in relation 6 to that enterprise. Order (#314), pp. 9-10. 7 In their Supplement to the Motion for Sanctions (#404), filed on June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs 8 provided the Court with the depositions of Lisa Rizzolo and the Rizzolos’ estate planning/asset 9 protection attorney, John Dawson, as well as documents relating to the Rizzolos’ trusts and trust 10 account transactions. These depositions and documents show that Mr. Rizzolo, through Lions 11 Limited, LLC, wired $990,000 to the RLR Trust account at Capital Security Bank in the Cook 12 Islands on or about April 21, 2008. Within a short time after the deposit of the $990,000 into the 13 RLR Trust account, most of it was paid out. One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) was paid 14 to Patti, Sgro & Lewis for attorneys fees. Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) was paid to 15 Lisa Rizzolo’s trust, the LMR trust, for loans that she had authorized and requested to be made to 16 Mr. Rizzolo. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) was paid to Mr. Rizzolo’s father in 17 repayment of a loan. The remaining balance in the account of $89,850 was wired to Mr. Dawson’s 18 trust account in July 2008 at Mr. Rizzolo’s request, for purposes of covering his living expenses 19 and paying Mr. Dawson’s attorney’s fees. 20 Mr. Rizzolo served his Supplemental Response in Compliance with Order (#314) on May 21 18, 2010. See Supplement (#379). According to this supplement, Mr. Rizzolo provided additional 22 documents in compliance with Order (#314), including documents relating to promissory notes, 23 wire transfers and transactions involving Mr. Rizzolo, the LMR Trust and the RLR Trust. On June 24 4, 2010, Mr. Rizzolo served his Seventh Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (#394) 25 in which he provided statements and other documents concerning his investment interests in Energy 26 Transfer Partners, LP and Primerica. On June 14, 2010, Mr. Rizzolo served his Eighth Supplement 27 in Continued Compliance with Order #314 (#398). He attached to this supplement a letter from 28 Primerica regarding the time it would take to provide complete statements for the Primerica 6 1 account. On June 25, 2010, Mr. Rizzolo served his Ninth Supplement in Continued Compliance 2 with Order #314 (#406), which attached a print-out history for the Primerica account. It does not 3 appear, however, that Mr. Rizzolo complied with this Court’s March 12, 2010 order that he produce 4 a complete copy of the RLR Trust’s bank account statements. See Order (#314), p. 10. 5 DISCUSSION 6 In their Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions (#371), Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a default 7 judgment against Defendant Rick Rizzolo based on his willful violation of Order (#314). Although 8 Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Rizzolo generally failed to comply with the order in regard to documents 9 or information relating to his bank accounts, credit card accounts and investment accounts, the 10 primary focus of the motion was Mr. Rizzolo’s alleged failure to produce documents or information 11 regarding the RLR Trust and other trusts. As set forth above, subsequent to the filing of the motion 12 for sanctions, Mr. Rizzolo, through his counsel, provided additional documents in compliance with 13 the Court’s order on a rolling basis. This included providing some documents relating to the RLR 14 trust and apparently relating to the the proceeds that Mr. Rizzolo received in or about April 2008 15 from the sale of his interest in a topless nightclub in Philadelphia, Pa. It does not appear, however, 16 that Defendant Rizzolo has produced the bank statements from the RLR Trust bank account in 17 Capital Security Bank Limited located in the Cook Islands. 18 Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(b)(2) provides that if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit 19 discovery, the court may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just. The rule includes a 20 list of sanctions that the court may impose, including the severe sanctions of dismissing the action 21 or entering a default judgment. In regard to the imposition of severe sanctions, Henry v. Gill 22 Industries, 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993) states: 23 “Because the sanction of dismissal is such a harsh penalty, the district court must weigh five factors before imposing dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Porter v. Martinez, 941 F.2d 732,733 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). 24 25 26 27 ... 28 ... 7 The key factors are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions. Henry, 983 F.2d at 1 2 948, citing Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). For dismissal or default to be 3 proper, the conduct to be sanctioned must also be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith by the losing 4 party. Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is all that is required 5 to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith or fault. Henry, 983 F.2d at 947-48, citing Fjelstad v. 6 American Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1985). In deciding whether dismissal or 7 default is warranted, the court may consider all of the offending party’s discovery conduct. Henry, 8 983 F.2d at 947, citing Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 The requesting party suffers prejudice if the responding party’s discovery violations impair 10 the requesting party’s ability to go to trial or threaten the rightful decision of the case. Henry, 983 11 F.2d at 948. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, Inc., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th 12 Cir. 1995), states that the severe sanction of dismissal is warranted where a party has engaged 13 deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings. In that case, 14 the court held that plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant’s failure to produce the documents because 15 it was forced to rely on incomplete and spotty evidence in presenting its defense to the 16 counterclaim. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 69 F.3d at 353-354. The court also rejected defendant’s 17 argument that plaintiff was not prejudiced because the documents were produced two months 18 before the scheduled commencement of trial. The court noted that it has “squarely rejected the 19 notion that a failure to comply with the rules of discovery is purged by belated compliance.” 20 The Ninth Circuit summed up the basis for imposing severe sanctions in Valley Engineers Inc. v. 21 Electric Engineering Company, 158 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 1998) as follows: 22 What is most critical for case-dispositive sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less drastic sanctions, is whether the discovery violations “threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Adriana, 913 F.2d at 1412. While contumaciousness toward the court needs a remedy, something other than case-dispositive sanctions will often suffice. Dismissal is appropriate where a “pattern of deception and discovery abuse made it impossible” for the district court to conduct a trial “with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available.” Id., at 1057-58, citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 69 F.3d at 352. 23 24 25 26 27 ... 28 ... 8 1 Defendant Rick Rizzolo’s discovery responses in December 2008 and April 2009 regarding 2 his interests in testamentary or inter vivos trusts were clearly deceptive. At the time of these 3 responses, Mr. Rizzolo must have known of the existence of the RLR Trust and that he had 4 transferred $990,000 into the RLR Trust’s bank account in April 2008, which shortly thereafter was 5 withdrawn at his request to pay his attorneys fees, to repay loans from Lisa Rizzolo and her trust, to 6 repay a loan from his father, and to cover Mr. Rizzolo’s living expenses. Rule 37(b) does not 7 authorize entry of a default judgment solely because a party has given false or deceptive answers to 8 interrogatories.3 The rule, instead, authorizes the imposition of severe sanctions where the party’s 9 violation of discovery orders prejudices the opposing party’s ability to proceed to trial and threatens 10 the rightful decision of the case. 11 In this case, Mr. Rizzolo, through his counsel Mr. Frizzell, began supplementing his 12 previous discovery responses even before the Court entered its second order to compel on March 13 12, 2010. Following the entry of that order, Defendant engaged in an ongoing supplementation of 14 his discovery responses which continued after Plaintiffs filed their motion for sanctions on May 11, 15 2010. While Defendant Rizzolo’s supplementation of his discovery responses is not altogether 16 sufficient, his conduct does not demonstrate the type of willful disobedience of the court’s orders 17 that justifies entering a default judgment against him. Stated otherwise, the Court is not persuaded 18 that the deficiencies in Defendant’s compliance with the discovery orders in this case make it 19 impossible to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth will be available. 20 Nor is the Court persuaded that Mr. Rizzolo’s failure to comply with his discovery 21 obligations makes it impossible for Plaintiffs’ counsel to adequately depose Mr. Rizzolo. Requiring 22 Mr. Rizzolo to answer questions under oath at deposition regarding the disposition of his assets 23 since September 2001, including previously undisclosed business and trust transactions, and loans 24 25 3 26 27 28 The fact that a party has provided false answers under oath may, of course, be used to be impeach his testimony at trial and may support a finding against the party on the issues to which the false answer is relevant. In this case, for example, the trier of fact may conclude that Mr. Rizzolo’s false or deceptive answers to interrogatories demonstrate an ongoing intent to conceal his assets or the disposition of those assets. 9 1 or other transactions between he and his ex-wife, may establish the necessary elements for 2 Plaintiffs’ conspiracy and fraudulent transfer claims against the Defendants. Mr. Rizzolo’s 3 testimony may also lead to the discovery and seizure of his assets. The Court will not assume that a 4 deposition of Mr. Rizzolo will be substantially unavailing in either respect. Mr. Rizzolo may also 5 be subject to a follow-up deposition, if necessary, in regard to additional records that are discovered 6 as a result of his initial deposition. Finally, the threat of more severe sanctions should impress upon 7 Mr. Rizzolo the need for him to be completely truthful during his deposition. 8 Plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the statements for the RLR Trust Account at the Capital 9 Security Bank in the Cook Islands. Notwithstanding his compliance with the Court’s March 12, 10 2010 order in other respects, Mr. Rizzolo has still not complied with that portion of the order that 11 required him to produce those statements. An award of attorneys fees against Mr. Rizzolo for 12 failure to comply with this portion of the Court’s March 12, 2010 order is therefore justified. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions for 15 Defendant Rick Rizzolo’s Failure to Comply With Order (#371) is denied, in part, and granted, in 16 part, as follows: 17 18 19 1. Plaintiffs’ request that a default judgment be entered against Defendant Rick Rizzolo pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37 (b) is denied, without prejudice. 2. Defendant Rick Rizzolo shall produce to Plaintiffs complete bank statements for the 20 RLR Trust Account at the Capital Security Bank in the Cook Islands, or any other financial 21 institution account for that trust, from the date of the inception of such account(s) up to the present 22 or through the date that the bank account(s) was closed. Defendant is further directed to take 23 immediate action to request and/or direct the trustees of the the RLR Trust to produce the account 24 statements. Unless extended by stipulation of the parties or court order, such statements shall be 25 produced to Plaintiffs on or before August 25, 2010. 26 3. Defendant Rick Rizzolo is ordered to pay $1,000.00 to Plaintiffs, as and for 27 reasonable attorneys fees on the motion for sanctions, based on his failure to comply with the 28 Court’s order requiring him to produce a complete copy of the RLR Trust’s bank account 10 1 statements. Continued failure to comply with this portion of the Court’s order will result in 2 imposition of more severe sanctions, which could include granting Plaintiffs’ request for entry of a 3 default judgment. 4 5 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadline in this case is extended until October 8, 2010 for purposes of permitting Plaintiffs to take Mr. Rizzolo’s deposition. DATED this 10th day of August, 2010. 7 8 9 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
