*1 regard With through corporation.6 his debtor had secreted assets. While this 727(a)(3), complaint simply section in- may solely hindsight analysis, be requested the documents were but dicates that, balance, Court believes on the more contrast, In produced. not section 4004(a), specific strictures of Rule and the 727(a)(4), liability sought the basis rule, policies in that play embodied amendment, be added involves the greater role in the determination of wheth- allegedly conduct in prepetition debtor’s allowed, and, er an amendment should be secreting from his assets creditors and of proceeding, under the facts this that the them, oath, failing to disclose under not statute of strictly limitations must be con- once, separate but on three occasions.7 strued and enforced. Accordingly, the mo- recovery Each of these theories of and the tion to Accordingly, amend will be denied. pleaded separate facts in them constitute it transactions or events. itWhile is true plaintiffs ORDERED that Motion alleged this conduct constitutes an for Leave to File Complaint, Amended egregious the Bankruptcy violation of 20, 2000, July filed is Denied. and the obligations, Code debtor’s Court cannot construe the amendment to IT IS SO ORDERED. “relate if it in back” fact does not do so.
Finally, the Employ- Court believes that
ers had sufficient information to formulate good objection faith discharge under 727(a)(4) 4004(a)
section within the Rule period.
limitations The alleged assets missing are listed on the debtor’s finan-
cial statement which given Employ- in conjunction
ers with the issuance of the SHUBOV, In re Vladimir Debtor. bond and agreement. indemnification The Building Inc.; Group, Polo Arlo
debtor is obligated to list all of his assets Smith, Appellants, Hale on his schedules and statement of affairs pursuant to Rule 1007. The fact that the v. assets —or some formulation of them— Rakita, Appellee. Faina were or were listed on the financial statements existed at the of filing time NC-99-1531-KPRy. BAP No. Thus, Employer’s those statements. Bankruptcy No. 95-3-2611-TC. was in possession of both documents ready comparison inception at the United States Appellate Panel Indeed, case. it appeared Employers of the Ninth Circuit. questioned regarding the debtor the exis- Submitted June 2000. tence of other assets at the section meeting. apparent Since there was an Sept. Decided 2000. discrepancy between the documents and there was other conduct in other transac- fraud,
tions which Employe/, indicated basis, time,
had a at that to believe that complaint very 6. generally also property states cealment of because a transfer or explain satisfactorily debtor “failed to property may concealment of be both a false deficiency loss of assets or his liabilities.” of assets to meet Perez, oath and a concealment. See In re (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1994). Thus, B.R. statute, while difficult under the it is not im- contrast, In a cause of action under section possible theory liability for a new 727(a)(4)(A) may original relate back to an pleaded theory. section to relate back to a 727(a)(2) governing cause under section con- *3 CA, Smith, Francisco; Facts San Arlo Hale Group, Inc. Building Polo appellant Appellant represents Smith (“Polo”) Building Group, Polo Inc.
creditor RYAN, KLEIN, PERRIS, and Before: bankruptcy. in the Vladimir Shubov Judges. Polo, $37,000 judgment creditor on judgment
pre-bankruptcy
state
court
Shubov,
$750,000
against
proof
filed a
OPINION
action,
theory
claim on a
that it has a tort
trustee,
KLEIN,
independent
alleg-
based
Bankruptcy Judge.
pre-bank-
edly fraudulent transfers made
to issue
power
abused the
Appellants
ruptcy.
*4
sanc-
subpoenas
were
federal civil
Smith,
Polo,
acting
subpoenas
issued
two
to the
tioned
rules ill-suited
under
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
of
We AFFIRM on the basis
situation.
Rule”)
(“Civil
45
Fargo
to obtain Wells
45(c)(1),
of Civil Procedure
Federal Rule
appellee
Bank’s account records of
Faina
bankruptcy
and is
applies
which rule
Rakita and three
all of whom
corporations,
specifically
subpoena
tailored to
abuse.
suspects of hiding
Polo
Shubov’s assets.
Only the Rakita
is before
subpoena
us.
Jurisdiction
permission
Polo had
obtained court
for an examination under Federal
of
sub
bankruptcy
The
court had
(“Bankruptcy
Procedure
ject-matter jurisdiction over the sanctions
Rule”)
Polo
party
2004.
was not
to
it
proceeding”
a “core
that was
motion as
adversary
or contested matter
proceeding
hear
28
empowered to
and determine.
respect
to which the
157(b)
§§
&
The sanctions
U.S.C.
1334.
scope
discovery
the
of
within
Civil
on-going
final
is no
order is
because there
26(b).
Nor had the court authorized
matter
adversary proceeding
contested
an
of
pursue
Polo to
action on behalf
the
relates; hence,
risk
to which it
there is no
trustee.
ability
interfering
judge’s
of
with trial
piece
or of promoting
structure sanctions
bank,
opposed
knowing
its customer
v. Hamil
appeals.
Cunningham
meal
records, objected
of account
to the
release
Cf.
198, 209, 119 S.Ct.
County,
ton
527 U.S.
subpoena.
(1999).
have
act on sanctions without a motion. Standard Review of separate A motion for sanctions under Appel- Rule 9011 was filed. fact for findings review of We 9011 opposition ignored lants’ novo. clear and conclusions of law de error award under argued against rule or statute The determination which position because Polo’s question governs particular situation is justified” or “oth- “substantially was either whether to regarding of law. Decisions an award of ex- circumstances make er subpoenas quash and sanctions enforce unjust.” hearing, the court penses At the are reviewed for abuse incident thereto rules the acted on basis of both v. discretion. United States Columbia alternative. (9th Inc., Sys., 666 F.2d Broad. ; Cir.1982) Resource, findings made deter- Digital LLC v. The court factual cf. (In Resource, Abacor, appellants’ purpose issuing Digital mining re Inc. (8th attempt LLC), BAP related to the B.R. Cir. action as to pursue a fraudulent transfer 2000). standing which Polo lacked and that it did Nor had the court authorized “Rule objection not relate to to claim or 2004” bankruptcy discovery. Hence, proceeding pending when the sub- R.Bankr.P. 2004. the court cor- poena ap- rectly was issued. And it found that rejected appellants’ excuse pellants they were overreaching. subpoenas knew were intended to explore might dragged whether others into the The court awarded sanctions measured bankruptcy case. by the Rakita incurred in oppos- $4630.58 motion, ing ruling appellants acted The court ruled that the fraudulent faith improper purpose. bad and for an theory transfer tort on which Polo’s And, alternative, in the ex- awarded $750,000 claim merely was based was 37(a). penses under Civil Rule ap- This avoiding action owned the trustee as to peal ensued. which Polo lacked standing and that a objection
claim was insufficient to warrant Issue subpoenas. the court abused its discretion Whether The court found that appellants were ordering
when pay appel- aware that the subpoenas were inappropri- lee’s in resisting incurred ate and proceeded nevertheless press *5 compel compliance motion to with the sub- compel, the motion to to point even the of poena. demanding sanctions from the bank for failing comply to subpoena. the Discussion Any of these independently factors sup- begin by reviewing We the facts for ports the finding court’s addressing clear error before the intrica- acting were in bad faith. Cumulatively, cies of the sanctions rules. provide they ample support for the court’s
conclusion. I In awarding Rakita in fees and $4630.58 The bankruptcy court concluded expenses incurred in opposing the motion that the issued with knowl to compel, the court did clearly err. edge that it was not an tied to action as to standing which Polo had and with knowl II edge that it was not tied any legitimate Procedural error infects the Bankruptcy discovery. say We cannot that the bank instance, Rule 9011 award in this while ruptcy clearly court in reaching erred this Civil Rule application. is of doubtful conclusion. subpoenas The were not linked A specific request for discovery under the Federal Rules of ap- Civil Procedure that quarrel We do not with the court’s con- ply bankruptcy. E.g. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26- prosecuted clusion that Polo its motion to 36, incorporated by Fed.R.Bankr.P. compel 7026- in violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b).1 Yet, 36 & 9014. Rakita’s award cannot be 9011(b) Bankruptcy (1) provides: being presented it is not im- purpose, proper such as to harass or to (b) Representations By to the Court. unnecessary delay cause or needless in- (whether presenting by signing, to the court litigation; crease the cost of filing, submitting, tition, advocating) pe- or later (2) claims, defenses, motion, legal the and other pleading, written or other paper, contentions therein are warranted attorney unrepresented party exist- ing certifying argument law or a nonfrivolous person's that to best information, extension) modification, belief, knowledge, and formed or reversal of inquiry existing after an cumstances,— reasonable law under the cir- or the establishment of new law;
545
rule’s “safe har-
compliance with that
after
proce-
that basis because
on
sustained
Bankruptcy
impossible.
provision became
requirements
bor”
dural
not satisfied.
were
Bankruptcy
can file a
party
No
(to conform to 1993
in 1997
modified
As
targeted party
until after the
9011 motion
11),
in Civil
changes
given
the motion and
has been served with
procedures be
precise
requires
interval)
(or
court-prescribed
days
vary based
followed,
of which
the details
offending
to withdraw or correct
imposed by
being
are
whether sanctions
9011(c)(1)(A).
matter.
court’s initiative.
or on the
motion
until
not make her motion
Rakita did
9011(c).2
R.Bankr.P.
had been de-
after the motion
bankruptcy’s
guidance regarding
For
nied,
it was too late for Polo
point
at which
rich
turn to the
we
clone of Civil
the motion or
withdraw or correct either
under that rule.
lore of decisions
subpoena.
un
who ask for sanctions
Parties
is that Raki
primary problem
circum
permitted
rule are not
der this
was out
.Rule 9011 motion
ta’s
until it is
by waiting
until
vent the safe harbor
it was not made
of order because
presenting
opposing the mo-
(3)
con-
incurred
allegations
other factual
circumstances,
or,
exceptional
tion. Absent
support
evidentiary
if
have
tentions
identified,
jointly responsible for
shall be held
likely
law firm
are
to have
specifically so
partners, associ-
committed
its
op-
violations
evidentiary support after a reasonable
ates,
employees.
investigation or dis-
portunity for further
(B)
On its own
On Court's Initiative.
covery; and
initiative,
de-
enter an order
the court
are
of factual contentions
the denials
appears
scribing
specific conduct that
or,
specifically
on the evidence
if
warranted
(b)
*6
directing
and
an
to violate subdivision
identified,
reasonably
on a
are
based
so
firm,
attorney,
party to show cause
law
or
belief.
of information or
lack
(b) with
why
not violated subdivision
it has
9011(b).
Fed.R.Bankr.P.
respect thereto.
Sanction;
(2)
A
Limitations.
Nature of
(c) provides:
Bankruptcy
9011
imposed
of this rule
for violation
sanction
If,
(c)
and a rea-
after notice
Sanctions.
sufficient to deter
be limited to what is
shall
respond,
opportunity to
the court
sonable
comparable
repetition
such conduct or
(b) has been
determines that subdivision
similarly situated. Sub-
conduct
others
violated,
may, subject to the con-
the court
(A)
subparagraphs
ject to the limitations in
below, impose
appropriate
an
ditions stated
of,
(B),
may
or
sanction
consist
the
firms,
attorneys, law
or
upon the
sanction
include,
nonmonetary na-
of a
directives
(b)
subdivision
or
parties that have violated
court,
ture,
penalty
pay a
into
an order to
responsible for the violation.
are
or,
imposed
and warranted for
if
on motion
(1)How Initiated.
deterrence,
directing pay-
an order
effective
(A) By
for sanctions
Motion. A motion
or all of the
movant of some
ment to the
separately
be made
under this rule shall
ex-
attorneys’
and other
fees
reasonable
requests and shall
or
from other motions
the
a direct result of
penses incurred as
alleged
specific
to vio-
the
conduct
describe
violation.
(b).
It shall be served as
late subdivision
(A)
may
Monetary
not
sanctions
provided
7004. The motion
party
in Rule
against
represented
awarded
present-
(b)(2).
may
be filed with or
sanctions
violation of subdivision
unless,
days
(B)
after
may
ed
the court
within
not be
Monetary
to
sanctions
(or
period
of the motion
such
unless the
service
on the court's initiative
awarded
challenged
may prescribe), the
to
cause before
as the court
its order
show
court issues
defense, contention,
claim,
allega-
of the
paper,
voluntary
or settlement
dismissal
tion,
appro-
against
party which
withdrawn or
the
or denial is not
claims made
is,
are,
corrected,
attorneys
be sanctioned.
except
this limita-
to
priately
or whose
sanctions,
alleged
imposing
the
apply if the conduct
Order. When
shall not
tion
determined
describe the conduct
filing
petition in violation of subdi-
court shall
of a
warranted,
rule and
(b).
violation of this
to constitute a
the court
If
vision
imposed.
sanction
explain the basis for the
prevailing
motion
party
on the
award to the
9011(c).
attorney's
Fed.R.Bankr.P.
fees
the reasonable
pay monetary
violating
too late to withdraw or correct the offend
sanctions for
Bank-
9011(b)(2).
Miller,
ing
ruptcy
matter. Barber v.
146 F.3d
Fed.R.Bankr.P.
(9th
9011(c)(2)(A).
Cir.1998); 5A Charles
710-11
Wright
Arthur R.
Miller,
Alan
Federal
&
Second,
court,
empow
while
(2d
§ 2d
Procedure,
Practice
payment
penalty
ered to order
of a
into
ed.
A
Supp.2000)
& Miller”)
(“Wright
initiative,
acting
court when
on its own
deprive
target
movant cannot
of the
attorney’s
cannot shift
fees and other ex
opportunity
escape
sanctions
with
penses directly resulting from the violation
drawal
correction.
except upon motion of a party.
did not have the man-
Since
9011(c)(2). Thus,
R.Bankr.P.
if the court
datory
to withdraw or correct
opportunity
initiative,
acted on its own
a monetary
offending papers, Bankruptcy
award
payment
penalty
other than
of a
9011(c)(1)(A)
imposed
sanctions
on Raki-
into the court would have been unautho
ta’s motion cannot be sustained.
Barber,
rized.
The court did not issue an Hence,
order to show cause.
to the extent
that the award was made on the court’s
B
own initiative under
it
proce-
Rule
is
Appellants
us to
in-
invite
consider the
durally defective.
teresting question of whether Civil Rule
37(a)(4)(B) applies notwithstanding that
the subpoena was not issued in connection
errors,
Even
procedural
absent
discovery
devices enumer-
three other
would need to
issues
be re-
ated in that rule.
solved before
Rule 9011 sanc-
tions could be affirmed.
unnecessary
We decline the invitation as
45(c)(1)
because Civil Rule
specifically
is
First,
important
would be
subpoena
tailored to
abuse.
know whether the sanctionable conduct vi
9011(b)(2)
only
olated
Bankruptcy Rule
appellants’
or We treat
Civil Rule
de-
whether it also violated
of the three
fenses—that
their actions were substan-
justified
subdivisions of
tially
or that other circumstances
9011(b).
Polo,
This matters
unjust
arguments
because
as a make an award
un-
—as
represented party, cannot be required
they
der Civil Rule 45 that
took reasonable
duty
The
is co-extensive with the
or
undue burden
imposing
to avoid
steps
subpoenas,
authority to issue
liberalized
expense.
enforce the
the courts are directed to
Ill
court
mandatory language
in
duty
—the
duty”
attention to Civil
this
contem
turn our
“shall enforce
We
—that
45(c)(1)
affirm for
we can
what consti
because
a liberal construction of
plates
E.g.
by
Thus,
the record.
supported
any reason
tutes a
it has been held
breach.
1020, 1027
California,
45(c)(1)
191 F.3d
v.
Dittman
sanctions can be
that Civil
Cir.1999).
(9th
n. 3
to whether the
imposed without reference
satisfy all
elements of
circumstances
his
subpoena on
issued the
Smith
that it men
process
the tort of abuse of
45, which
authority under Civil Rule
own
note.
advisory
in the
committee
tioned
per Bankruptcy
bankruptcy
in
applies
Instrumentation,
Inc. v.
High Tech Med.
45, incorporated
9016. Fed.R.Civ.P.
Indus., Inc.,
perceive no error this mutually are not exclusive. The drafters in 45(c) It follows that all of Rakita’s of Civil Rule made clear that rule response subpoena, including to the attor- any pro was not intended to cut back on fees, ney’s eligible are to be awarded. tections that already existed. The adviso ry explained, committee the rule “is not short,
In award of court’s fees rights by intended to diminish conferred by Rakita was authorized Civil Rule 45(c)(1) authority.” Civil Rules 26-37 or other and will be affirmed on that 45(c), advisory Fed.R.Civ.P. commit ground. note; Siegel, tee David Federal Subpoena Practice Under the New Rule 45 of bankruptcy The order of the court re- Procedure, Federal Rules Civil of quiring Polo to pay and Smith Rakita (1992). F.R.D. To the extent is AFFIRMED. $4630.58 encompassed by abuse was other rules, those rules would also continue to KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge, concurring: apply. join I majority opinion and write 26(g) Civil Rule would particularly separately for completeness the sake of pertinent appeal to this because the court 26(g) note that Civil Rules and 37 are purported acting to be bankruptcy’s in quiver. arrows the sanctions clone of Civil 11. The salience of In order for these in apply rules 26(g) Civil Rule is embodies the instance, however, present we would have former version of Civil 11 that is, to conclude that Polo’s motion to (and effect until 1993 remained itself, a “contested matter” under Bank- bankruptcy effect in until the 1997 amend ruptcy Rule 9014. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011) Bankruptcy ment to and incorporating Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026-7037. subject procedural straight to the jacket included in the new Rule 11 Civil I Bankruptcy Rule 9011.6 applicable, If 26(g), Civil Rule is another Moreover, key provisions substantive affirming basis for the award. Fed. Rule 11 Rule 9011 26(g), incorporated R.Civ.P. relating improper purpose R.Bankr.P. 7026. rule and warrant applies This ad versary ed law proceedings, petitions, replicated contested are Civil Rule 11(b)(1)-(2) 26(g). and contested Compare matters. 7037, 1018 9011(b)(1)-(2), & 9014. and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 26(a)(5) provides: 26(g)(2) (3) Civil Rule 6. Civil Rule echoes old versions — of Civil Rule 11 and Rule 9011: (5) Methods to Discover Additional Mat- discovery by Every discovery ter. Parties obtain request, response, one or following depositions objection more of the party represented by methods: made upon questions; attorney signed by oral examination or written shall be at least one interrogatories; production attorney written attorney’s doc- of record in the individ- *9 name, things permission uments or or to enter ual whose address shall stated. be upon property unrepresented party sign land or other under Rule 34 An shall the re- 45(a)(1)(C), inspection pur- quest, response, objection or other and or and state the examinations; poses; physical party's signature and mental address. The of the attor- requests ney party and for admission. or constitutes a certification that 26(a)(5), incorporated by knowledge, signer’s Fed.R.Civ.P. Fed. to the best of the mation, infor- belief, R.Bankr.P. 7026. and formed after a reason- Thus, II a mo- 26(g)(2)(A)-(B). Fed.R.Civ.P. or purpose” “improper the
tion under Likewise, unnecessary we find it while Rule 11 of Civil prongs law” “warranted mysteries into the of Civil Rule 37 to delve the iden- Rule 9011 raises and plain of the of Civil light applicability in a Rule issues as tical substantive 45(c), it noted that there is should be theories. motion on the same 26(g) attenuated —under which theory- a —-albeit Bankruptcy Rule 9011 Rakita’s Since if the motion to might applied that rule be “im- issues of squarely presents motion a compel were to be deemed “contested and not “warranted purpose” proper matter.” law,” have al- follows bankruptcy per in applies Civil Rule 37 opportunity to process had their due ready Bankruptcy Rule 7037. presented to the same theories respond adversary applies pro- 7037. This rule 26(g). under Civil Rule ceedings, petitions, contested and contest- appel- determination that The court’s 7037, 1018 & ed matters. Fed.R.Bankr.P. faith is tantamount proceeded lants bad subpoena, the to a determination request, successfully opposes was who a Civil discovery One which is form within improper purpose compel for an motion to is entitled interposed 26(g)(2)(B), was meaning opposing the of Civil incurred in expenses reasonable by existing law or a nonfriv- motion, fees, not warranted including attorney’s un- the law, change in was argument olous motion was the court finds that the less unduly or burdensome vio- unreasonable justified circum- substantially or 26(g)(2)(C), and was lation of Civil expenses unjust. stances make an award justification. without substantial done 37(a)(4)(B).7 the enti- Fed.R.Civ.P. Since the court tlement is automatic unless short, if were to conclude that In we to rescue specific determination makes a “contested motion to Polo’s movant, the award is better the 9014, then matter” under in the doing as a cost of business described apply would 26(g) I that Civil Rule believe arena than as a sanction. discovery dispute its discre- that the court did not abuse and Park Assocs. v. Alex- Barton Business the rule and in finding tion in a violation of Cf. ander (In re Barton Business Park As- the award to Rakita. making court, upon upon or its own request, response, or ob- the motion inquiry, the able initiative, impose upon person the jection is: shall (A) certification, party these rules and war- consistent with the who made good disclosure, by existing faith request, ranted law or re- whose behalf the extension, modification, made, both, argument for the objection sponse, is or an or law; existing sanction, or reversal of (B) may appropriate include an any improper pur- interposed for pay the amount of the reasonable order to cause unnec- pose, such as to harass or to violation, expenses incurred because of the essary delay needless increase in the or including attorney’s fee. a reasonable litigation; cost of and 26(g), incorporated Fed. (C)not unduly unreasonable or burden- R.Bankr.P. 7026. expensive, given of the or the needs some case, case, discovery already had in 37(a)(4)(B) provides: 7. Civil Rule impor- controversy, the amount in denied, (B) is the court If motion litigation. issues at stake in the tance of the protective order authorized enter request, response, objection or is not aIf shall, 26(c) affording op- after signed, unless it is it shall be stricken heard, require moving portunity to be called signed promptly after the omission is attorney filing party or the the motion making party to the attention party depo- pay to the both of them to objection, party request, response, or and a the reason- opposed the motion nent who obligated to take action shall not opposing mo- able incurred signed. respect to it until it fees, tion, including attorney's unless the justification If without substantial rule, making that the of the motion court finds in violation of the certification is made *10 (Bankr.E.D.Cal. 37(a). 776, socs.), A Civil subpoena 118 B.R. Rule 45 is rule). 1990) (prior discovery itself a form of as defined 26(a)(5). Moreover, Civil has been explained, its bankruptcy As the court expenses held connection with a subpoena and motion were rulings may Civil Rule 45 subpoena be awarded made in bad faith and were not warranted under the “undue or expense” burden necessarily proposi- by law subsume 26(c). analysis of Civil Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. substantially not they tions that also were 26(c); Inc., Sys., Columbia Broad. do justified and that other circumstances F.2d at 368-69. Thus, unjust. if Civil not make award 37(a) then the court’s award applies, notes, As the Moore’s treatise “the in justified easily could be basis. 26(c), 37(a), terplay between Civil Rules noted, correctly, subject that a a The court Civil and remains of debate when poses from, award conceptual sought discovery protective or was problems subpoena because Polo’s litigated by, nonparty.” order is 7 James issued in connection with of the discov Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Prao ery ¶ devices enumerated that rule. 8A 37.23[11], (3d at 37-58 — 37-59 tice (2d § Wright, n. 2288 15 ed.2000) omitted). Marcus Miller & (parentheses ed.1994). Thus, I regard do not our decision as 37(a) encompasses Civil failures holding that apply 37 does not required by make disclosure Civil Rule abuse. 26(a), 37(a)(2)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P. as well as In light unambiguous applicability question failures to answer a asked under 45(c), of Civil Rule the issue can left be designation Civil Rules 30 or to make a day. another 30(b)(6) 31(a), under Civil Rule to an- an interrogatory swer under Civil Rule respond inspection
or to to a request 34, all may
under Civil Rule of which
addressed a motion to discov- 37(a)(2)(B). ery. Fed.R.Civ.P. Lynn MARSHALL, In re Vickie The one other circumstance in which Debtor. 37(a) expense Civil Rule are ex- awards Marshall, Plaintiff, E. Pierce
pressly permitted is connection with a v. 26(c) protective Civil Rule motion for or- 26(c) (“The provisions der. Fed.R.Civ.P. Lynn Marshall, Defendant. Vickie 37(a)(4) apply Civil Rule to the award of Lynn Marshall, Vickie expenses incurred in relation to the mo- Counterclaimant, tion”). v. The naked this instance Marshall, E. Pierce Counterdefendant. would not within compass lie the direct 37(a). Nothing Civil Rule had happened 96-12510-SB, LA Nos. LA 96-01838-SB. trigger obligation disclosure Court, United States 26(a). Civil Rule Nor was there asso- California. C.D. deposition, interrogatory, request ciated 6, 2000. Oct. production. And there nowas motion protective for a order.
Nevertheless, naked subpoena
lie within compass the indirect of Civil 37(a)(4)(B), substantially justified incorporated or that other cir- Fed. cumstances make an award of un- (emphasis supplied). R.Bankr.P. 7037
just.