Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
0A863 - O71
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
Miguel Pena, et. al.
Plaintiffs, : CASE NO: 10 CVH-12-18323
v JUDGE BESSEY
Marco Centeno, et. al
Defendants.
DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS CENTENO AND
GUADALAJARA’S MOTION TO ORDER PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES
WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF SERVICE
FILED OCTOBER 19, 2012
AND
DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT REFCO’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
FILED OCTOBER 22, 2012
AND
DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF PENA AND DEFENDANT
CELTIC HEARTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012
These matters are before the Court pursuant to a Motion to Order Rule 34 Production and
Rule 26 Responses Within Fourteen (14) Days of Service, filed by Defendant Marco Centeno
(“Centeno”) and Defendant Guadalajara Multi-Services, Inc. (“Guadalajara”) on October 19,
2012. Plaintiff Miguel Pena (“Pena”) filed a Memorandum Contra on October 29, 2012
Defendant Refco, LLC (“Refco”) filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Pena, Celtic Hearts’
Corporate Representative and Mr. Stewart on October 22, 2012. Plaintiff Pena and Defendant
Celtic Hearts, LLC (“Celtic Hearts”) filed a Joint Memorandum Contra in Response to
Defendant Refco’s Motion to Compel Depositions on October 30, 2012. Defendant Refco filed a
Reply in Support of Motion to Compel on November 2, 2012, and in response, Plaintiff Pena and
Defendant Celtic Hearts filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order on November 9, 2012Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
0A863 - O72
Defendant Refco filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order on
November 20, 2012, and Defendant Centeno and Defendant Guadalajara filed a Memorandum
Contra the Motion for Protective Order on November 26, 2012.
I. Discussion
The motions at issue revolve around the timing of discovery requests. Defendants
Centeno and Guadalajara first seek further discovery from Plaintiff Pena with an accelerated
response time due to the quickly approaching trial date. Defendant Centeno also requests
discovery from Mr. Daniel Suarez who provided an affidavit for Plaintiff Pena’s motion for
summary judgment; requests for production of documents and requests for admissions from
Plaintiff Pena; and seeks to depose Plaintiff Pena. Plaintiff Pena argues that no more discovery
in this case is permitted as the discovery deadline has passed.
As the Court discussed in its October 17, 2012 Decision, Defendant Centeno spent
several months without representation of counsel. This time frame when Defendant did not have
the benefit of counsel included the end of the discovery period. As the Court found in its
October 17, 2012 Decision, the prejudice suffered by Defendant Centeno by not extending
discovery deadlines is greater than any prejudice the other parties may suffer by extending the
deadline. The Court finds that in the interest of justice and fairness it is important to allow
Defendant Centeno’s new counsel to conduct discovery so that the critical questions at the core
of this dispute can be considered on their merits.
However, the Court also finds that the accelerated response times requested by Defendant
Centeno create an undue burden for Plaintiff Pena. The Court finds that Plaintiff Pena should
adequately respond to the discovery requests and schedule the requested depositions at a
mutually agreed upon date. The Court shall issue a separate decision modifying the caseFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
0A863 - O73
schedule to allow time for necessary discovery to be conducted. Therefore, based on the
foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant Centeno’s Motion to Order Rule 34 Production
and Rule 36 Responses Within Fourteen Days of Service. However, the parties are directed to
coordinate dates and conduct discovery in a timely manner.
Next, Defendant Refco seeks to compel the depositions of Plaintiff Pena and Mr. Stewart,
the owner and president of Defendant Celtic Hearts. Defendant Refco also seeks to depose a
corporate representative of Celtic Hearts, if Mr. Stewart is not the corporate designee. Defendant
Refco argues that it spent months attempting to find a mutually agreeable time to conduct the
depositions. Defendant Refco asserts that there was an agreement to delay the depositions
pending a settlement conference that was scheduled, but then never conducted. However,
Defendant Refco claims to have only agreed upon delaying the depositions if Plaintiff Pena and
Mr. Stewart would be made available after the discovery cutoff dates should the settlement
negations fail.
In response, Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts argue that they offered dates to
conduct the depositions but that Defendant Refco’s counsel failed to follow through with the
scheduling of the depositions. Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts now argue that they
will suffer great prejudice if forced to conduct the sought after depositions this close to the trial
date. However, as mentioned above, the case schedule will be altered to allow more time for
discovery. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no reason these depositions cannot be
conducted during that time.
The Court further finds that the prejudice that would be suffered by Defendant Refco
outweighs any timing inconvenience suffered by the other parties. This holds particularly true
considering additional time will be made available for Defendant Centeno to seek additionalFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
OA863 - O74
discovery. The Court has a great interest in ensuring that the case can be heard on its merits.
Additional discovery may lead to evidence that ensures the necessary facts are brought to light to
decide this case on its merits.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Refco’s
Motion to Conduct Depositions. It then necessarily follows that the Court DENIES Plaintiff
Pena’s and Defendant Celtic Hearts’ Joint Motion for a Protective Order against Defendant
Refco’s counsel from continuing discovery requests and to enforce the previous discovery cut-
off deadlines. However, the Court also finds that Defendant Refco’s unilateral scheduling of
video depositions on November 14, 2012 was unreasonable. As such, the Court directs Plaintiff
Pena, Mr. Stewart, and Defendant Celtic Hearts to work with Defendant Refco’s counsel to find
mutually agreed upon dates to conduct the depositions in compliance with the new case
schedule.
IL. Conclusion
Based on the discussion above, and in the interest of fairness and justice, additional time
for discovery is necessary in this case. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants
Centeno and Guadalajara’s Motion to Order Rule 34 Production and Rule 36 Responses Within
Fourteen Days of Service, but directs the parties to coordinate and conduct discovery in
compliance with the new case schedule. The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Refco’s Motion
to Compel Depositions of Pena, Celtic Hearts Corporate Representative, and Mr. Stewart and
directs the parties to reach mutually agreed upon dates to conduct the depositions in compliance
with the new case schedule. The Court also hereby DENIES Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic
Hearts’ Joint Motion for a Protective Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
0A863 - O75
Copies to:
Ron Khasawneh, Esq
KhasewnehR@pmail com
Delilah Nunez, Esq.
Delilah Nunezi@email.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, Miguel Pena
Erika J Schoenberger, Esq
eschoenberger(ibtlaw.com
Benjamin J. Yoder, Esq.
byoder@fotlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant, Refco, LLC
Rick Brunner, Esq.
rbg@brumerl aw.
Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
yaciibrunnerlaw.con
Elizabeth A. Mote, Esq.
eam(@brunnerlaw.con
Counsel for Defendants, Marco Centeno and Guadalajara Multi-Services, Inc.
Robert A. Bracco, Esq.
ol com,
Counsel for Defendant, Celtic Hearts, LLC
Stephanie Champ Klimack, Esq
Stephanie. klimack@buntington.com
Counsel for Defendant, The Huntington National BankFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
0A863 - O76
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 12-16-2012
Case Title: MIGUEL PENA -VS- MARCO CENTENO
Case Number: 10CV018323
Type: DECISION/ENTRY
It Is So Ordered.
fobn
/s/ Judge John P. Bessey
Electronically signed on 2012-Dec-16 page 6 of 6Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323
0A863 - O77
Court Disposition
Case Number: 10CV018323
Case Style: MIGUEL PENA -VS- MARCO CENTENO
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 10CV0183232012-10-1999980000
Document Title: 10-19-2012-MOTION
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
2. Motion CMS Document Id: 10CV0183232012-10-2299980000
Document Title: 10-22-2012-MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
3. Motion CMS Document Id: 10CV0183232012-1 1-0999980000
Document Title: 11-09-2012-MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Disposition: MOTION DENIED
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 0A863 - O71 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION Miguel Pena, et. al. Plaintiffs, : CASE NO: 10 CVH-12-18323 v JUDGE BESSEY Marco Centeno, et. al Defendants. DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS CENTENO AND GUADALAJARA’S MOTION TO ORDER PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF SERVICE FILED OCTOBER 19, 2012 AND DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT REFCO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FILED OCTOBER 22, 2012 AND DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF PENA AND DEFENDANT CELTIC HEARTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 9, 2012 These matters are before the Court pursuant to a Motion to Order Rule 34 Production and Rule 26 Responses Within Fourteen (14) Days of Service, filed by Defendant Marco Centeno (“Centeno”) and Defendant Guadalajara Multi-Services, Inc. (“Guadalajara”) on October 19, 2012. Plaintiff Miguel Pena (“Pena”) filed a Memorandum Contra on October 29, 2012 Defendant Refco, LLC (“Refco”) filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of Pena, Celtic Hearts’ Corporate Representative and Mr. Stewart on October 22, 2012. Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts, LLC (“Celtic Hearts”) filed a Joint Memorandum Contra in Response to Defendant Refco’s Motion to Compel Depositions on October 30, 2012. Defendant Refco filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Compel on November 2, 2012, and in response, Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order on November 9, 2012Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 0A863 - O72 Defendant Refco filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order on November 20, 2012, and Defendant Centeno and Defendant Guadalajara filed a Memorandum Contra the Motion for Protective Order on November 26, 2012. I. Discussion The motions at issue revolve around the timing of discovery requests. Defendants Centeno and Guadalajara first seek further discovery from Plaintiff Pena with an accelerated response time due to the quickly approaching trial date. Defendant Centeno also requests discovery from Mr. Daniel Suarez who provided an affidavit for Plaintiff Pena’s motion for summary judgment; requests for production of documents and requests for admissions from Plaintiff Pena; and seeks to depose Plaintiff Pena. Plaintiff Pena argues that no more discovery in this case is permitted as the discovery deadline has passed. As the Court discussed in its October 17, 2012 Decision, Defendant Centeno spent several months without representation of counsel. This time frame when Defendant did not have the benefit of counsel included the end of the discovery period. As the Court found in its October 17, 2012 Decision, the prejudice suffered by Defendant Centeno by not extending discovery deadlines is greater than any prejudice the other parties may suffer by extending the deadline. The Court finds that in the interest of justice and fairness it is important to allow Defendant Centeno’s new counsel to conduct discovery so that the critical questions at the core of this dispute can be considered on their merits. However, the Court also finds that the accelerated response times requested by Defendant Centeno create an undue burden for Plaintiff Pena. The Court finds that Plaintiff Pena should adequately respond to the discovery requests and schedule the requested depositions at a mutually agreed upon date. The Court shall issue a separate decision modifying the caseFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 0A863 - O73 schedule to allow time for necessary discovery to be conducted. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant Centeno’s Motion to Order Rule 34 Production and Rule 36 Responses Within Fourteen Days of Service. However, the parties are directed to coordinate dates and conduct discovery in a timely manner. Next, Defendant Refco seeks to compel the depositions of Plaintiff Pena and Mr. Stewart, the owner and president of Defendant Celtic Hearts. Defendant Refco also seeks to depose a corporate representative of Celtic Hearts, if Mr. Stewart is not the corporate designee. Defendant Refco argues that it spent months attempting to find a mutually agreeable time to conduct the depositions. Defendant Refco asserts that there was an agreement to delay the depositions pending a settlement conference that was scheduled, but then never conducted. However, Defendant Refco claims to have only agreed upon delaying the depositions if Plaintiff Pena and Mr. Stewart would be made available after the discovery cutoff dates should the settlement negations fail. In response, Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts argue that they offered dates to conduct the depositions but that Defendant Refco’s counsel failed to follow through with the scheduling of the depositions. Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts now argue that they will suffer great prejudice if forced to conduct the sought after depositions this close to the trial date. However, as mentioned above, the case schedule will be altered to allow more time for discovery. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no reason these depositions cannot be conducted during that time. The Court further finds that the prejudice that would be suffered by Defendant Refco outweighs any timing inconvenience suffered by the other parties. This holds particularly true considering additional time will be made available for Defendant Centeno to seek additionalFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 OA863 - O74 discovery. The Court has a great interest in ensuring that the case can be heard on its merits. Additional discovery may lead to evidence that ensures the necessary facts are brought to light to decide this case on its merits. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Refco’s Motion to Conduct Depositions. It then necessarily follows that the Court DENIES Plaintiff Pena’s and Defendant Celtic Hearts’ Joint Motion for a Protective Order against Defendant Refco’s counsel from continuing discovery requests and to enforce the previous discovery cut- off deadlines. However, the Court also finds that Defendant Refco’s unilateral scheduling of video depositions on November 14, 2012 was unreasonable. As such, the Court directs Plaintiff Pena, Mr. Stewart, and Defendant Celtic Hearts to work with Defendant Refco’s counsel to find mutually agreed upon dates to conduct the depositions in compliance with the new case schedule. IL. Conclusion Based on the discussion above, and in the interest of fairness and justice, additional time for discovery is necessary in this case. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants Centeno and Guadalajara’s Motion to Order Rule 34 Production and Rule 36 Responses Within Fourteen Days of Service, but directs the parties to coordinate and conduct discovery in compliance with the new case schedule. The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Refco’s Motion to Compel Depositions of Pena, Celtic Hearts Corporate Representative, and Mr. Stewart and directs the parties to reach mutually agreed upon dates to conduct the depositions in compliance with the new case schedule. The Court also hereby DENIES Plaintiff Pena and Defendant Celtic Hearts’ Joint Motion for a Protective Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 0A863 - O75 Copies to: Ron Khasawneh, Esq KhasewnehR@pmail com Delilah Nunez, Esq. Delilah Nunezi@email.com Counsel for Plaintiff, Miguel Pena Erika J Schoenberger, Esq eschoenberger(ibtlaw.com Benjamin J. Yoder, Esq. byoder@fotlaw.com Counsel for Defendant, Refco, LLC Rick Brunner, Esq. rbg@brumerl aw. Peter A. Contreras, Esq. yaciibrunnerlaw.con Elizabeth A. Mote, Esq. eam(@brunnerlaw.con Counsel for Defendants, Marco Centeno and Guadalajara Multi-Services, Inc. Robert A. Bracco, Esq. ol com, Counsel for Defendant, Celtic Hearts, LLC Stephanie Champ Klimack, Esq Stephanie. klimack@buntington.com Counsel for Defendant, The Huntington National BankFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 0A863 - O76 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 12-16-2012 Case Title: MIGUEL PENA -VS- MARCO CENTENO Case Number: 10CV018323 Type: DECISION/ENTRY It Is So Ordered. fobn /s/ Judge John P. Bessey Electronically signed on 2012-Dec-16 page 6 of 6Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2012 Dec 16 9:48 PM-10CV018323 0A863 - O77 Court Disposition Case Number: 10CV018323 Case Style: MIGUEL PENA -VS- MARCO CENTENO Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 10CV0183232012-10-1999980000 Document Title: 10-19-2012-MOTION Disposition: MOTION DENIED 2. Motion CMS Document Id: 10CV0183232012-10-2299980000 Document Title: 10-22-2012-MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 3. Motion CMS Document Id: 10CV0183232012-1 1-0999980000 Document Title: 11-09-2012-MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Disposition: MOTION DENIED