ABN Corporation et al v. Groupe Pelm International Corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ABN CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GROUPE PELM INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00004-RFL (LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING JOINT LETTER
REGARDING SCOPE OF REOPENED
DISCOVERY AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Re: Dkt. No. 230, 231
Fact discovery in this case previously closed on November 21, 2025. ECF No. 149.
Plaintiffs timely filed a discovery letter brief challenging aspects of Defendant Victoria Brieant’s
(and her law office’s) document production and interrogatory responses. After ordering
production of certain documents improperly withheld as privileged, the Court ordered Brieant to
sit for a deposition “as a resolution—at least in part—to the parties’ remaining” disputes regarding
written discovery, without prejudice to Plaintiffs renewing their “remaining requests in the
November 21, 2025 joint letter . . . after Brieant is deposed.” ECF No. 195 at 3. That deposition
was supposed to take place in December of 2025, id., but did not occur until March 11, 2026, and
it was cut short improperly such that the Court ordered it reopened at a later date, ECF No. 227.
In the meantime, Judge Lin issued a Case Scheduling Order setting a new close of fact
discovery for July 15, 2026. ECF No. 228. That Order provided that “the scope of discovery
remains as set by Magistrate Judge Cisneros.” Id.
Plaintiffs have now “taken off calendar Brieant’s April 15, 2026 [resumed] deposition” and
instead “seek to serve third-party subpoenas to [several] witnesses” based on the reopening of fact
discovery. ECF No. 230 at 1 (Defendants’ assertions, which Plaintiffs do not dispute).
Defendants contend that Judge Lin’s new Scheduling Order only allows for the discovery that this
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 232 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Court previously authorized. Id. at 1–3. Plaintiffs disagree, noting that they proposed further
discovery in their submission to Judge Lin prior to her Scheduling Order, and that Judge Lin
characterized the dispute before her as “whether the new schedule will allow for additional
discovery.” Id. at 3–4.
Though Plaintiffs’ reading of the Scheduling Order is not frivolous, Brieant has the better
argument. When Judge Lin ordered that “the scope of discovery remains as set by Magistrate
Judge Cisneros,” ECF No. 228 (emphasis added), the only scope of discovery that this Court had
“set” was: (1) Brieant’s resumed deposition; and (2) the possibility of supplemental document
production or interrogatory responses sought in the November 21, 2025 joint letter, to the extent
warranted after the deposition is completed. This Court does not read Judge Lin’s Scheduling
Order as authorizing anything further. Plaintiffs may not take discovery beyond that scope.
It is possible that additional information Plaintiffs learn through Brieant’s deposition and
document production might provide sufficient cause to reopen discovery further. See Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (addressing the “good cause”
standard to modify a scheduling order, which focuses primarily on diligence). Plaintiffs have not
sought to make such a showing in the joint letter currently before the Court. ECF No. 230 at 3–4.
If Plaintiffs were to show sufficient cause to reopen discovery for any purpose beyond what is
already authorized (i.e., the deposition and the materials at issue in the November 21, 2025 joint
letter), the Court would be inclined to reopen discovery for all purposes, up to the new cutoff date
set by Judge Lin. Under those circumstances, parsing which new discovery is or is not sufficiently
supported by new information would not be a good use of the Court’s or the parties’ resources,
and it would be unfair to allow additional free-ranging discovery by Plaintiffs without allowing
Brieant to take discovery as well.
The parties are directed to meet and confer as to how they wish to proceed, and to file
either a status report or joint letter no later than May 8, 2026. Any request to reopen discovery
beyond its current scope must be supported by evidence of new information learned after the
previous close of fact discovery. Such a request must also demonstrate that further reopening
discovery is proportional to the needs of the case—or in other words, that the new information
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 232 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiffs seek to follow up on is sufficiently important to justify the significant further
expenditure of resources by both sides that would follow.
Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, seeking to depose
incarcerated witness Justin Constantatos (ECF No. 231), is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 232 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3