Acrobat PDF

Murray et al v. Alulim Willow Property Group, LLC et al - 7

You must be logged in to download this document
Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
32
downloads:
0
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/9/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
Murray et al v. Alulim Willow Property Group, LLC et al Doc. 7 Case 8:07-cv-02261-AW Document 7 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND __________________________________________ ) David Murray ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) Civil Action # AW 07 CV 2261 ) Alulim Willow Property Group, LLC, et al. ) Defendants ) __________________________________________) ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery on Facts Relevant to Identity of Defendants, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs are granted leave to conduct discovery reasonably calculated to lead to identification of Defendants, to be concluded within 90 days of the date of this order. _________________________________ Judge Dockets.Justia.com Case 8:07-cv-02261-AW Document 7 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND __________________________________________ ) David Murray ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) Civil Action # AW 07 CV 2261 ) Alulim Willow Property Group, LLC, et al. ) Defendants ) __________________________________________) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY ON FACTS RELEVANT TO IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs, through counsel, move for leave to take discovery on facts relevant to the identification of the Defendants, and states as follows: 1. Local Rule 104.4 prohibits Plaintiff from taking discovery prior to the issuance of a scheduling order, absent leave of court or agreement by the parties. To date, none of these circumstances exist. Plaintiff files this motion to seek leave of Court pursuant to the Local Rule. 2. As described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Defendants in this matter have collaborated in forming and running a fraudulent scheme. The fraud alleged includes the deceptive business plans and models, falsification of the Defendants’ true identities, and falsification of corporate records in the District of Columbia, among others. 3. There is an entire body of information that is uniquely in the possession of the Defendants, their agents, or third parties that would allow the Plaintiffs to determine the true identify of the Defendants. Plaintiff seeks to conduct discovery of this information via written requests and via deposition. 4. As stated in the Complaint, Defendants advertised job openings on a multitude of job websites, including Craigslist.org, AWPGroupCareers.com, 2Worksathome.com, Case 8:07-cv-02261-AW Document 7 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 4 Sciencejobs.com, and Academiccareers.com. While the true identity of the Defendants could not be determined from the ads themselves, the job advertisement firms would have information about the Defendants’ identities, because the Defendants provided payment information to these firms. 5. In addition to the employment advertisement firms, Margaret McBreairty, the “Operations Manager,” to whom new employees were instructed to fax their signed contracts, would have additional information. 6. Plaintiffs believe that numerous other entities would be potential sources of information from which Plaintiffs could determine the true identities of the Defendants. 7. Plaintiffs are forced to seek discovery for functional reasons. Service cannot be made on Defendants unless their true identities and locations are revealed. 8. Plaintiffs are further entitled to discovery for reasons of fairness. Precluding Plaintiffs from seeking discovery would have the effect of preventing Plaintiffs from the opportunity to prove the allegations in their well-pled complaint, because Defendants would never be identified or served with process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to take discovery as to the true identity of the Defendants. Case 8:07-cv-02261-AW Document 7 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 4 of 4 __________________________________ Eric J. Menhart CyberLaw P.C. 401 E. Jefferson Ave, Suite 201 Rockville, MD 20850 Bar ID #16869 Telephone: 240-606-7092 / Fax: 240-539-6235 eric.menhart@cyberlawonline.com 10/24/2007 Date ______/s/____________________________ Christopher Aldo Porco* The Law Offices of Christopher Aldo Porco, PLLC 910 17th Streent NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-331-4444 / Fax: 202-331-4451 porco@porcolaw.com * Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
Murray v. Newman et al - 7
Views: 41  |  Downloads: 0
Murray v. Allen et al (INMATE1) - 7
Views: 31  |  Downloads: 0
Murray et al v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc. - 7
Views: 40  |  Downloads: 0
Murray v. Christenson et al - 31
Views: 16  |  Downloads: 0
Murray v. Newman et al - 3
Views: 35  |  Downloads: 0
Murray v. Newman et al - 6
Views: 36  |  Downloads: 0
Carr v. Murray et al - 5
Views: 32  |  Downloads: 0
Curley v. Murray et al - 4
Views: 23  |  Downloads: 0
Hernandez v. Murray et al - 3
Views: 23  |  Downloads: 0