Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Z-R Corp. v. Central Hobron Associates (In re Central Hobron Associates)
Citations: 36 B.R. 108; 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6059Docket: Bankruptcy No. 83-0027
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii; June 8, 1983; Us Bankruptcy; United States Bankruptcy Court
The Order grants the Motion to Compel Discovery filed on February 22, 1983, by Z-R Corporation, Dora Kong, Stanley Shin (Trustee), and CJMD Realty, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") against James Allyn, Edwin Fujinaga, John Critcher, and Ralph Cornuelle (collectively "Defendants"). The original action began with a Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed on February 1, 1983, leading to a Temporary Restraining Order issued on February 4, 1983, which prohibited CHA from disbursing $900,000 until further hearings. The Temporary Restraining Order was extended multiple times, with a subsequent stipulation on February 8, 1983, allowing discovery to commence after filing the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs issued deposition notices and subpoenas on February 11, 1983, but Defendants refused to answer questions during the scheduled depositions, prompting the Motion to Compel on February 18, 1983. At the February 22 hearing, the Court orally granted the motion while also addressing the Preliminary Injunction, which was formally ordered on March 15, 1983. A hearing on the complaint is scheduled for June 21, 1983. During the May 12, 1983 hearing, attorneys for Defendants argued the relevance of the questions and the appropriateness of the subpoenas, while Plaintiffs maintained that the questions were relevant and the use of subpoenas for document production was valid. After reviewing submitted materials and counsel arguments, the Court made findings related to the motion. The court finds no authority supporting the argument that a Subpoena Duces Tecum is an improper method for document production during a deposition. The plaintiffs are entitled to request relevant documents through discovery and subpoenas. To obtain a Preliminary Injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claims, including evidence of an outstanding balance and potential irreparable harm if funds are disbursed by CHA, Charles Pankow, or SAJE Ventures II. The court deems that the questions and documents sought in discovery are pertinent to these issues, and the defendants' failure to respond is unjustified. A stipulation limits the deposition scope for Critcher, absolving him and Hawaii Escrow of violations, yet Hawaii Escrow is ordered to produce subpoenaed documents. Defendants’ counsel is sanctioned for obstructing Critcher's deposition and must cease interference with discovery. The court rules that no witness fees were necessary for Cornuelle's counsel, and delays caused by this issue are compensable. Plaintiffs will receive costs for attorney fees due to the defendants' non-cooperation, pending submission of time sheets. The court also concludes that the Motion to Compel remains relevant despite the Preliminary Injunction and grants the Motion for Order Compelling Discovery.