Myhre v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International Missionary Society
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53781
S.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Steinar Myhre, a retired pastor, sued multiple corporate church entities (IMS-NJ, IMS-GC, IMS-TX, IMS-GA, IMS-Miami, IMS-FL, IMS-Tampa) for breach of contract and related claims after his pension payments ceased; he alleges the entities operate as a unified, hierarchical organization and that corporate identities overlap (shared names, personnel, EINs).
- Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss challenging subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) and venue, asserting several corporate defendants have principal places of business in Colorado or elsewhere, which would destroy diversity or make the Southern District improper.
- Myhre moved to compel jurisdictional discovery (depositions, document production, interrogatory answers, initial disclosures) focused on principal places of business, contacts with the forum, and corporate formalities/alter-ego issues.
- Defendants sought a protective order to block or limit that discovery, arguing it was irrelevant, overbroad, premature (no Rule 26(f) conference with new defendants), or duplicative of public records.
- The Magistrate Judge found disputed factual assertions about defendants’ principal places of business and contacts with the forum justified targeted jurisdictional discovery and denied many protective-order arguments; ordered supplementation of responses, production of specified corporate records, and permitted two depositions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is permissible | Myhre: factual disputes about defendants’ citizenship, contacts, and alter-ego theory justify discovery to oppose motions to dismiss/transfer | Defs: discovery premature or improper (no 26(f) confer with new parties); discovery irrelevant to jurisdiction/venue | Granted in part — jurisdictional discovery allowed despite Rule 26(f) issue; parties had previously agreed to discovery and court authorized it |
| Rule 26(f) / timing objection | Myhre: parties conferred earlier and attempted follow-up; discovery necessary to oppose motions | Defs: discovery impermissible before 26(f) conference with new defendants | Rejected — court found exceptions and prior agreements sufficient; discovery not barred by lack of new 26(f) meeting |
| Depositions of Henry Dering and IMS-TX officers | Myhre: Dering and IMS-TX officers have knowledge of corporate structure/contacts; deposition necessary | Defs: deny or limit depositions; deponent selection belongs to defendants; topics overbroad | Granted (limited): Dering and an appropriate IMS-TX officer may be deposed; IMS-TX may select which officer to produce |
| Production of financials and long-range records (profit/loss; bank accounts; property) | Myhre: ten-year (or five-year) financial/real property/bank records relevant to continuity, presence, and alter-ego analysis | Defs: overbroad, irrelevant to venue/jurisdiction, invades privacy, public records available | Granted in part: many financial and property requests compelled as relevant to minimum-contacts/alter-ego; some objections overruled; defendant assertions that documents don’t exist were respected where claimed |
| Specific corporate records and public filings (bylaws, articles, officer elections, annual reports, DHS visa submission) | Myhre: these records bear on corporate separateness, officers overlap, and jurisdictional contacts | Defs: not relevant or beyond appropriate time frame | Granted: defendants ordered to produce bylaws, articles, election records, annual reports, and the 2007 DHS document requested from IMS-NJ (subject to reasonable temporal limits where noted) |
| Interrogatories about purpose, personnel, EINs, and office locations | Myhre: answers needed to identify operations, agents, EIN overlap and actual places of activity | Defs: vague, unrelated, or publicly available; some objections on burden | Granted in part: defendants must provide clearer, non-evasive answers (including EINs or identify records under Rule 33(d)); some responses may be temporally limited to last ten years or since incorporation |
| Protective order to bar further discovery pending resolution of Rule 12 motions | Defs: discovery should be stayed until motions to dismiss resolved | Myhre: discovery necessary now to respond to factual jurisdictional assertions | Denied as premature — court declined a blanket stay and allowed targeted jurisdictional discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (discovery relevance standard)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court discretion to permit jurisdictional discovery)
- Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (discovery ordinarily granted where jurisdictional facts controverted)
- Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of discovery when it might demonstrate jurisdiction can be abuse of discretion)
- Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must show how discovery could contradict defendant affidavits)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction standard: continuous and systematic contacts)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts framework)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors for general jurisdiction include longevity, continuity, volume)
- Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) (factors bearing on contacts: longevity, continuity, volume)