United States District Court, N.D. California
November 3, 2005.
PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LIMITED, Plaintiff,
DAMODER REDDY, et al., Defendants. DAMODER REDDY, Counterclaimant, v. PENTALPHA OFFSHORE LIMITED, et al., Counterdefendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED
SEPTEMBER 9, 2005; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED
SEPTEMBER 9, 2005; VACATING HEARING
Before the Court is counterclaimant Damoder Reddy's Objection
to Report and Recommendation on Pentalpha's Motion for Sanctions
Dated September 9, 2005. Having reviewed the objection, the Court
deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the
hearing scheduled for November 4, 2005, and rules as follows.
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, as well
as the record before the Magistrate Judge, see
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court hereby DENIES the objection. Contrary to
Reddy's argument that he complied with the Court's order of June 24, 2005, he plainly did not, as he failed to set forth in his
discovery responses, inter alia, a "detailed factual basis
for contending that Pentalpha converted any specific item of
Reddy's property," (see Stipulation and Order Re Further
Discovery Responses, filed June 24, 2005, at 2:7-9), a "valuation
of each element of damages for each specific item of allegedly
converted property," (see id. at 2:10-11), "all persons who
he alleges . . . defamed him, including each individual's name,
address, and position held at . . . Pentalpha," (see id. at
2:13-15), and "each act by Pentalpha that he contends caused
emotional distress," (see id. at 3:2-3). Further, as set
forth in the Report and Recommendation, Reddy's failure to comply
with the Court's order was willful, i.e., it was not accidental
or the result of an oversight. Lastly, a review of the record
reflects no good cause for Reddy's failure to comply with the
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation filed September 9, 2005.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.