Saniefar v. Moore et al

Filing 188

ORDER Vacating Hearing set for July 17, 2019 (Doc. No. 187 ) and ORDER Regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Further Dislosures (Doc. No. 152 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/16/2019. (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FATEMEH SANIEFAR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
TANYA E. MOORE, et al.,

15
Defendants.

16
17

No. 1:17-cv-00823-LJO-BAM
ORDER VACATING HEARING SET FOR
JULY 17, 2019
(Doc. No. 187)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
AND FURTHER DISCLOSURES
(Doc. No. 152)

18
19
20

Currently before the Court is the motion of Defendants Moore Law Firm, P.C., Tanya E.

21

Moore, Ronald D. Moore, Zachary M. Best, Marejka Sacks, Mission Law Firm A.P.C., Rick D.

22

Moore, West Coast Casp and ADA Services and Ronny Loreto 1 (“Defendants”) to compel

23

Plaintiff Fatemeh Saniefar (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Request for Production,

24

Set One and to further amend her initial disclosures. (Doc. 152.) On July 3, 2019, the parties

25

filed a Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement. (Doc. 185.) Plaintiff also filed a separate

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to order of the Court, the answers of Defendants Kenneth Randolph Moore and
Geoshua Levinson have been stricken and the Clerk of the Court subsequently entered default
against them. (Docs. 176, 183.)
1

1

declaration of counsel in support of the joint statement. (Doc. 186.)

2

The Court deems the matter suitable for determination without hearing and oral argument

3

and the matter is submitted upon the record and briefs. Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the

4

hearing currently set for July 17, 2019, is VACATED.

5
6

Having considered the record on file and the briefs on file, Defendants’ motion to compel
is DENIED.

7

Background

8

On May 29, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion seeking an order to compel Plaintiff

9

to provide further responses to Request for Production, Set One, and to further amend her

10

disclosures. (Doc. 152.) Defendants noticed the motion hearing for June 21, 2019. (Id.) Due to

11

the press of business, the Court continued the hearing to July 10, 2019. (Doc. 164.)

12

On July 3, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement, totaling

13

more than 260 pages inclusive of exhibits. (Doc. 185.) The discovery disagreement reportedly

14

concerns two primary issues: (1) Plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosures identifying approximately 680

15

witnesses likely to have discoverable information; and (2) Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’

16

document requests. (Id. at 2.)

17

Given the extensive joint statement, and due to the press of business, the Court continued

18

the hearing to July 17, 2019. The Court further directed the parties to continue their meet and

19

confer efforts to resolve the issues raised in the motion to compel. (Doc. 187.)

20

The deadline to complete non-expert discovery is September 6, 2019. (Doc. 146.)

21

Discussion

22

I.

23

As the first substantive issue, Defendants request that the Court require Plaintiff to reduce

24

Request for Further Supplemental Witness Disclosures

the number of witnesses identified in her First Supplemental Initial Disclosures.

25

On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff served her initial disclosures and identified 26 witnesses,

26

most of whom were either defendants, worked for the law firm defendants, were somehow related

27

to defendants or were litigants in other lawsuits against the Moore Law Firm. (Doc. 185 at 10,

28

Ex. A.) Subsequently, on October 16, 2018, Plaintiff served her First Supplemental Initial
2

1

Disclosures, which identified approximately 654 witnesses.

2

Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Initial Disclosures stated:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

(Id.; Ex. B.)

In relevant part,

Based on information currently available to Plaintiff, the individuals below are
likely to have discoverable information that Plaintiff may use to support the
claims in this action. By indicating the general subject matter in the possession of
the listed individuals below, Plaintiff does not limit the right to call any individual
or entity listed to testify concerning other issues or subjects. In making these
disclosures, Plaintiff does not waive the right to object, pursuant to applicable
federal and local rules, to discovery of information from any of the individuals
listed below, including, without limitation, by deposition, based on the attorneyclient privilege, the common interest privilege, work product protection, or any
other applicable rule, law or privilege.
The individuals listed below may be used by Plaintiff to prove Defendants’ fraud
in the filing and prosecution of manufactured ADA claims against California
businesses, business and property owners, and business and property managers.
[654 witnesses thereafter identified by name only]
(Doc. 185-2, Ex. B.)

13

Defendants’ Position

14

Defendants now contend that Plaintiff’s disclosure of over 654 witnesses is unreasonable

15

and burdensome, fails to properly provide a single address or telephone for these witnesses, and

16

provides only “a generic statement as to what each of the witnesses will be testifying about.”

17

(Doc. 185 at 17.)

18

To support their contention that Plaintiff’s disclosure is unreasonable, Defendants point

19

out that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate no more than ten depositions. Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i).

21

presumptively reasonable.

Defendants argue that this limitation provides insight into what is

22

To support their contention that Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosure is deficient because it

23

does not provide sufficient information regarding the scope of witness testimony, Defendants cite

24

to Forte v. Cty. of Merced, No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM, 2014 WL 4745923, at *4 (E.D. Cal.

25

Sept. 23, 2014) for the proposition that “while a party is not required to provide a detailed

26

narrative of the potential witness’ knowledge, the Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosure should provide

27

enough information that would allow the opposing party to help focus the discovery that is

28

needed and to determine whether a deposition of a particular person identified as a potential
3

1

witness might be necessary.” (citation omitted). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s conclusory

2

statement that the witnesses will be used to prove her fraud claim is improper and the Rule should

3

not be used to create a “needle in a haystack” approach to discovery.

4

Defendants claim that they are unable to evaluate whether any of the witnesses has

5

information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, asserting that the crux of this action concerns whether

6

Ronald Moore is disabled and whether he went to Zlfred’s restaurant. Defendants note that

7

Plaintiff has identified individuals “who appear to have either been defendants in ADA lawsuits

8

brought by Ronald Moore and/or attorney who represented those defendants,” but because

9

Plaintiff has not properly identified the subject matter of their testimony, they cannot evaluate

10

their relevance. Defendants also cannot understand how these individuals assist in proving that

11

Ronald Moore is not disabled or that he did not visit the businesses that he sues.

12
13

Finally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has made no effort to provide a single address or
telephone number for any of the 654 witnesses as required.

14

Plaintiff’s Position

15

In summary, Plaintiff’s counter that the Rule 26 initial disclosure requirement does not

16

circumscribe the number of individuals that may be disclosed as having discoverable information.

17

Plaintiff also asserts that given the nature and type of case at issue here, there may be several

18

hundred individuals that may have discoverable information. Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’

19

attempt to narrow this action to only Ronald Moore’s two cases against Zlfred’s, noting that this

20

action includes not only Ronald Moore’s disability and his alleged visits to Zlfred’s, but also

21

allegations of a pattern of racketeering conduct by 12 Defendants over the course of 10 years and

22

including approximately 2,000 ADA lawsuits filed throughout the State of California. (Doc. 185

23

at 20.)

24

Plaintiff further counters that Defendants cannot feign ignorance of the witnesses’

25

relevance to the litigation. Per Plaintiff, it has been conveyed to Defendants during the meet and

26

confer process that the supplemental witnesses “are all ADA defendants and their attorneys who

27

have been targeted by the criminal enterprise as alleged in Plaintiff’s FAC.” (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff

28

therefore asserts that these witnesses are “all victims of Defendant Tanya Moore’s illegal scheme
4

1

to extort money from ADA defendants and with whom Defendant Tanya Moore has engaged in

2

mail and wire fraud in the prosecution of fraudulent ADA cases.” (Id.)

3

As to the absence of phone numbers and addresses, Plaintiff’s report that this information

4

is already in Defendants’ possession since Defendant filed litigation against these witnesses and

5

have files related to the litigation that include the contact information for those defendants and

6

their attorneys. Plaintiff notes that Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff with the exact same

7

information in response to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents based on an assertion

8

that they were barred from doing so based on confidentiality agreements and that the information

9

was equally available to Plaintiff and Defendants.

10

Analysis and Ruling

11

Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s supplemental initial disclosures appear to be three-

12

fold: (1) Plaintiff has disclosed too many witnesses; (2) Plaintiff has failed to provide a statement

13

as to what each witness will testify about, and Defendants cannot ascertain their relevance; and

14

(3) Plaintiff has failed to provide addresses and telephone numbers for each of the witnesses.

15

First, as to the number of witnesses disclosed, there is nothing in the initial disclosure

16

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) circumscribing the number of witnesses

17

that a party may identify. In relevant part, Rule 26(a)(1) states:

18
19
20

[A] party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:
(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual
likely to have discovery information –along with the subjects of that
information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,
unless the use would be solely for impeachment[.]

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i).

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth a

22

presumptive limit of 10 depositions, such a limit may be altered either by stipulation or court

23

order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A), 30(a)(2).

24

Defendants’ attempt to limit this action to Plaintiff’s claims involving only Zlfred’s

25

restaurant is not persuasive. Based on the allegations in the operative First Amended Complaint,

26

this action encompasses a pattern of racketeering activity involving the filing and prosecution of

27

ADA lawsuits since approximately 2009. (Doc. 33, First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 29, 134.)

28

Thus, identification and disclosure of persons involved in the relevant lawsuits is warranted. In
5

1

that instance, it is not inconceivable that the number of potential witnesses well-exceeds that of

2

standard litigation.

3

Second, as to the proposed testimony of these witnesses, Plaintiff has clearly stated that it

4

she may rely on these witnesses “to prove Defendants’ fraud in the filing and prosecution of

5

manufactured ADA claims against California businesses, business and property owners, and

6

business and property managers.” Further, Plaintiff has repeatedly informed Defendants that

7

these witnesses are all ADA defendants and their attorneys who allegedly were targeted by the

8

criminal enterprise asserted in the First Amended Complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff has represented

9

that these individuals are all “alleged victims of Defendant Tanya Moore’s illegal scheme to

10

extort money from ADA defendants and with whom Defendant Tanya Moore has engaged in mail

11

and wire fraud in the prosecution of fraudulent ADA cases.” (Doc. 185 at 19.)

12

Defendants’ claim that they cannot ascertain the relevance of these individuals or of their

13

proposed testimony is disingenuous. Moreover, Defendants acknowledge that the individuals

14

identified in the Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures “appear to have either been defendants in

15

ADA lawsuits brought by Ronald Moore and/or attorney who represented those defendants.”

16

Given Defendants involvement in those lawsuits, they are clearly cognizant of the potential

17

relevance and testimony of the identified individuals, and likely are more familiar with the facts

18

and circumstances of those actions than Plaintiff.

19

Third, as to Defendants’ assertion that they do not have addresses and/or phone numbers

20

for the witnesses identified by Plaintiff in her supplemental disclosures also is disingenuous. At a

21

minimum, contact information for counsel and parties in lawsuits brought by Defendant Tanya

22

Moore or any of the defendants is within Defendants’ possession and/or case files. Fed. R. Civ.

23

P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (court must limit discovery that can be obtained from some other source that is

24

more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive).
For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel relative to Plaintiff’s supplemental

25
26

initial disclosures is DENIED.

27

///

28

///
6

1
2

II.

Request for Production of Documents
A.

Legal Standard

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), the scope of discovery is as follows:

4

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issue, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

5
6
7
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in

9

evidence to be discoverable. Id. However, the court must limit the extent of discovery if it

10

determines that (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative or can be

11

obtained from other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, (2) the

12

party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery, or (3)

13

the proposed discovery is outside the permissible scope. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).

14

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce

15

and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following

16

items in the responding party’s possession, custody or control: any designated documents or

17

tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

18
19
20

B.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production

Defendants seek to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 116, 117,
122, 123, 125, 126, 130, and 131.

21

Requests for Production Nos. 116 and 117

22

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 116:
All DOCUMENTS supporting the damages allegedly suffered by YOU as a result
of the conduct YOU accuse Defendants of as alleged in ¶¶ 206-209 and ¶¶ 227230 of YOUR FAC.

23
24
25
26
27
28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 116:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request to the extent that it calls for information or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or any
other applicable privilege. Responding Party objects to this request because it
calls for a legal and/or expert opinion or conclusion. Responding Party further
objects to this request because it is vague and overly broad as to scope. Subject to
7

1

and without waiving the foregoing objections, and based upon Responding
Party’s understanding of this request, Responding Party responds as follows.

2
3

Responding Party is willing to meet and confer with Propounding Parties
regarding the scope of this request.

4
5

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 117:
All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR claim for exemplary damages as alleged in
¶ 211 and ¶ 232 of YOUR FAC.

6
7
8
9
10
11

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 117:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request to the extent that it calls for information or documents
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or any
other applicable privilege. Responding Party objects to this request because it
calls for a legal and/or expert opinion or conclusion. Responding Party objects to
this request because it is vague, unintelligible and overly broad as to scope.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and based upon
Responding Party’s understanding of this request, Responding Party responds as
follows.

12
13

Responding Party is willing to meet and confer with Propounding Parties
regarding the scope of this request.

14

Defendants’ Position

15

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to provide any documentation to support her

16

claim for damages, including her claim that she has incurred over $300,000 in legal fees

17

defending the two underlying ADA actions and over $60,000 in expert fees and contractor

18

expenses in the underlying ADA actions.

19

Plaintiff’s Position

20

Plaintiff asserts that she has not refused to produce documents supporting her damages

21

claim. Rather, Plaintiff has indicated that this information would be provided as part of Plaintiff’s

22

Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendants Randy Moore and Geoshua Levinson with a full

23

accounting of Plaintiff’s RICO damages (applicable to all Defendants), fees and costs. Plaintiff

24

anticipates this motion to be filed with the Court on or before July 15, 2019.

25

Analysis and Ruling

26

Plaintiff has represented that she will produce a full accounting of her damages, fees and

27

costs in her impending Motion for Default Judgement as to Defendants Randy Moore and

28

Geoshua Levison. Based on Plaintiff’s representation, Defendants’ motion to compel further
8

1

responses to Request for Production No. 116 and No. 117 is DENIED as moot.

2

Request for Production No. 122

3

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 122:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between YOU (or YOUR
attorneys) and attorney H. Ty Kharazi.

4
5

11

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 122:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request because it seeks information or documents protected
by the work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, any other applicable
privilege, or seeks documents which have been prepared in anticipation of
litigation and trial of this matter. Responding Party further objects to this request
because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive as it seeks
documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action making the
request harassing and vexatious. Responding Party further objects to this request
because it is vague, overly broad, compound and unintelligible and not limited in
scope as it requests all communications without any limitations with and between
attorneys.

12

Defendants’ Position

13

Defendants explain that H. Ty Kharazi is an attorney who has represented several former

14

clients of the Mission/Moore Law Firms who sued those firms for breach of fee agreement, fraud

15

and other claims. Defendants indicate that Plaintiff has identified four of these disabled persons as

16

witnesses in this RICO case, Jesus Sosa, Daniel Delgado, Natividad Gutierrez, and Jesus Morales.

17

Defendants argue that if Mr. Kharazi provided Plaintiff or her counsel with any evidence that

18

Defendants engaged in racketeering or other illegal misconduct related to the former clients, such

19

documentation would be directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses.

20

Defendants assert that to the extent Plaintiff’s counsel has communicated or exchanged

21

documents with Mr. Kharazi, there is no evidence their communications are privileged.

22

Defendants therefore contend that Plaintiff should be compelled to produce all non-privileged

23

communications with Mr. Kharazi and otherwise provide a detailed privilege log for any

24

privileged documents.

6
7
8
9
10

25

Plaintiff’s Position

26

According to Plaintiff, Defendants amended their request as follows: “All DOCUMENTS

27

reflecting communications between YOU (or YOUR attorneys) and attorney H. Ty Kharazi

28

regarding the claims in YOUR complaint(s) against Defendants in the instant action.” (Doc. 185
9

1

at 28.) Plaintiff contends that even as revised, Defendants’ request is procedurally improper and

2

forbidden by the Federal Rules, irrelevant, burdensome and oppressive so as to constitute

3

harassment of Plaintiff and her counsel.

4

Plaintiff argues that if Defendants continue to request documents directly from Plaintiff’s

5

current litigation counsel, they must issue a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 and be prepared to

6

defend the propriety of that action under Rule 11 and in response to a motion for a protective

7

order.

8

With respect to the request as to Plaintiff’s communications with Mr. Kharazi, Plaintiff

9

contends that any such request is privileged. However, without waiving that objection, Plaintiff’s

10

counsel has stated that if the request is limited to Plaintiff, then she “will amend her responses to

11

indicate that there are no such documents.” (Doc. 185 at 30.)

12
13

With respect as to the request directed at Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff contends that despite
the fact that the request is improper it also seeks protected attorney work-product.

14

Analysis and Ruling

15

As to the request directed at Plaintiff, Defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff

16

has represented that no such documents exist regarding the claims in her complaint against

17

Defendants in the instant action. Plaintiff shall be required to amend her response.

18

As to the request directed at Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants’ motion to compel also is
Plaintiff’s counsel is not a party to this action and Defendants’ effort to seek

19

DENIED.

20

documents from Plaintiff’s counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 is procedurally

21

inappropriate. Rule 34 only permits requests for production directed at parties to the litigation.

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); Carmona v. D’Alessandro, 2015 WL 4395001, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 16,

23

2015) (“Defendant’s counsel is not a party to this action, and Rule 33 and Rule 34 of the Federal

24

Rules of Civil Procedures only permits interrogatories and requests for production of documents

25

to be propounded to parties.”).

26

Even if proper, however, Defendants’ request appears to seek protected work product

27

from opposing counsel. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), a party generally

28

“may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or
10

1

for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney,

2

consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).” Those materials may be discovered if they are

3

otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1) and the party “shows that it has substantial need for

4

the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial

5

equivalent by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(i), (ii). The requesting party must make

6

a substantial showing that it is unable through its own efforts to obtain needed information.

7

Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Ariz., 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir. 1989). The

8

conditional protections afforded by the work-product rule prevent exploitation of a party's efforts

9

in preparing for litigation. Admiral Ins. Co., 881 F.2d at 1494; Hewlett–Packard Co. v. Bausch &

10

Lomb, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 533, 538 (N.D.Ca.1987) (principal function of work-product rule is to

11

force each side to do its own work). Investigations specifically commissioned for the purpose of

12

obtaining information for use in a specific litigation are work product. See Hickman v. Taylor,

13

329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947) (“Proper preparation of a client’s case demands that [s]he assemble

14

information, sift what [s]he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, [and] prepare

15

h[er] legal theories....”).

16

Here, Defendants have not demonstrated that they have a substantial need for these

17

materials or that they cannot obtain materials involving former clients of the Mission/Moore Law

18

firms who were or are represented by Mr. Kharazi in breach of contract/fraud lawsuits against

19

those firms through other means, such as through those lawsuits.

20

Request for Production No. 123

21

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 123:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting the fee agreement between YOU and H. Ty
Kharazi.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 123:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request because it seeks information or documents protected
by the work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, any other applicable
privilege, or seeks documents which have been prepared in anticipation of
litigation and trial of this matter. Responding Party further objects to this request
because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive as it seeks
documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action making the
request harassing and vexatious. Responding Party further objects to this request
because it is vague, overly broad, compound and unintelligible and not limited in
11

1

scope as it requests all communications without any limitations with an attorney.

2

Defendants’ Position

3

Defendants contend that to the extent Mr. Kharazi briefly represented Plaintiff in the

4

underlying ADA action, his fee agreement is not privileged and would be relevant evidence of

5

Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

6

Plaintiff’s Position

7

Plaintiff reports that this request was amended as follows: “All DOCUMENTS reflecting

8

the fee agreement between YOU and H. Ty Kharazi related to the Prior Litigation.” (Doc. 185 at

9

36.) Plaintiff contends that this request is not relevant. However, if it is directed to Plaintiff’s

10

damages, Plaintiff reiterates that she will be providing responsive information regarding damages

11

in connection with her motion for default judgment, which she anticipates will be filed on July 15,

12

2019.

13

Analysis and Ruling

14

Defendants’ motion to compel a further response to this request is DENIED as moot.

15

Plaintiff intends to provide documents supporting her damages calculation in support of her

16

motion for default judgment.

17

Request for Production No. 125:

18

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 125:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications between YOU and any
individual regarding the Prior Litigation (other than YOUR attorneys).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 125:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request because it seeks information or documents protected
by the work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, any other applicable
privilege, and seeks documents which have been prepared in anticipation of
litigation and trial of this matter. Responding Party further objects to this request
to the extent that it asks for private or confidential information. Responding Party
also objects to this request because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome
and oppressive as it seeks documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of
this action and is not limited in scope or as to time, therefore making this request
harassing ad vexatious.
Defendants’ Position
Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s assertedly boilerplate objections and clarify that they are

28
12

1

seeking communications only involving Plaintiff, not her attorneys. Defendants also contend that

2

Plaintiff has failed to produce any of her communications with third parties regarding the

3

underlying ADA actions.

4

Plaintiff’s Position

5

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants amended this request as follows: “All DOCUMENTS

6

reflecting any communications between Fatemeh Saniefar and any individual regarding the Prior

7

Litigation (other than YOUR attorneys).” (Doc. 185 at 38.) Based on this revision, Plaintiff

8

indicates that she will update her response to this request to indicate that there are no documents

9

in her custody, possession or control responsive to this request.

10

Analysis and Ruling

11

As Plaintiff intends to update her response to this request, and in the absence of

12

responsive documents in her custody, possession or control, Defendants’ motion to compel a

13

further response is DENIED.

14

Request for Production No. 126:

15

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 126:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications between YOU and any
individual (other than YOUR attorneys) regarding this lawsuit.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 126:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request because it seeks information or documents protected
by the work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, any other applicable
privilege, and seeks documents which have been prepared in anticipation of
litigation and trial of this matter. Responding Party further objects to this request
to the extent that it asks for private or confidential information. Responding Party
also objects to this request because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome
and oppressive as it seeks documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of
this action and is not limited in scope or as to time, therefore making this request
harassing ad vexatious.
Defendants’ Position
Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s assertedly boilerplate objections and assert that they are

25
only seeking communications involving Plaintiff, not her attorneys. Defendants also contend that
26
Plaintiff has failed to produce any of her communications with third parties regarding the instant
27
RICO action.
28
13

1
2

Plaintiff’s Position

3

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants amended this request as follows: “All DOCUMENTS

4

reflecting any communications between Fatemeh Saniefar and any individual (other than YOUR

5

attorneys) regarding this lawsuit.” (Doc. 185 at 40.) Based on this revision, Plaintiff indicates

6

that she will update her response to this request to indicate that there are no documents in her

7

custody, possession or control responsive to this request.

8

Analysis and Ruling

9

As Plaintiff intends to update her response to this request, and in the absence of

10

responsive documents in her custody, possession or control, Defendants’ motion to compel a

11

further response is DENIED.

12
13

Request for Production No. 130:

14

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 130:
All statements and communications of any and all witnesses including any and all
statements of Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s), including taped recordings, whether
transcribed or not, as well as all written statements.

15
16

23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 130:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request because it seeks information or documents protected
by the work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, any other applicable
privilege, or seeks documents which have been prepared in anticipation of
litigation and trial of this matter. Responding Party further objects because
witnesses are equally available to Propounding Parties. Responding Party further
objects to this request because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and
oppressive as it seeks documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of this
action, and requests all statements and communications without any limitations as
to scope, time or persons, which therefore makes the request harassing and
vexatious. Responding Party further objects to this request because it is vague as
the terms “Plaintiff(s)” and Defendant(s)” are undefined.

24

Defendants’ Position

25

Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s apparent boilerplate objections. Defendants contend that

26

Plaintiff has improperly refused to produce copies of any witness statements regarding this case

27

and if Plaintiff possesses any statements from the witnesses listed in the initial and supplemental

28

disclosures, then those statements should be produced. Defendants clarify that they are seeking

17
18
19
20
21
22

14

1

statements made by Defendants or third parties, not Plaintiff or the work product of her attorneys.

2

Plaintiff’s Position

3

Plaintiff represents that the request for production has been modified as follows: “All

4

statements of Defendant(s) or third party witnesses, including taped recordings, whether

5

transcribed or not, as well as all written statements (not including attorney notes).” (Doc. 185 at

6

43.) Based on this revised request, Plaintiff asserts that she will update her response to indicate

7

that there are no documents in her custody, possession or control that have not already been

8

produced to Plaintiff or that are otherwise available from public sources.

9

Analysis and Ruling

10

As Plaintiff intends to update her response to this request, and in the absence of

11

responsive documents in her custody, possession or control, Defendants’ motion to compel a

12

further response is DENIED.

13

Request for Production No. 131

14

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 131:
All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications between YOU or YOUR
attorneys and any entity named as a defendant (including that defendant’s agent or
attorney) in any lawsuit filed by defendants Moore Law Firm, P.C. and Mission
Law Firm, A.P.C.

15
16
17

24

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 131:
Responding Party incorporates her Preliminary Statement, Objections to
Definitions and the General Objections as though fully stated herein. Responding
Party objects to this request because it seeks information or documents protected
by the work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, any other applicable
privilege, and seeks documents which have been prepared in anticipation of
litigation and trial of this matter. Responding Party further objects because
defendants in prior ADA lawsuits are equally available to Propounding Parties.
Responding Party further objects to this request because it is vague, overly broad,
unduly burdensome and oppressive as it seeks “any” communications and “any”
entity in “any” lawsuit between multiple attorneys. Responding Party objects to
this request because it seeks documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of
this action, and does not contain any scope as to the documents requested,
therefore making the request harassing and vexatious. Responding Party further
objects because this request is duplicative of Request No. 120.

25

Defendants’ Position

26

Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s assertedly boilerplate objections. Defendants also argue

27

that communications between Plaintiff (or her counsel) and any third-party businesses previously

28

sued by the Moore Law Firm are not privileged and Plaintiff has failed to prepare a privilege log.

18
19
20
21
22
23

15

1

Defendants assert that they have a substantial need for Plaintiff and her counsel to provide any

2

evidence or communications they have received from third parties about this case. Defendants

3

believe that they cannot obtain these materials by other means as Plaintiff’s witnesses appear to

4

be attorneys and their clients involved in prior ADA lawsuits with the Moore Law Firm.

5

Defendants anticipate that many of these witnesses will refuse to provide information without

6

legal compulsion and that conducting more 650+ depositions or issuing 650+ subpoenas would be

7

a complete waste of time if Plaintiff already knows that the majority of these witnesses have no

8

relevant information. Defendants conclude that if Plaintiff and her counsel have already received

9

evidence from certain witnesses, Plaintiff should be required to produce that evidence and those

10

non-privileged communications so that Defendants may evaluate which of the 650+ witnesses

11

should be deposed without the unnecessary waste of anyone’s time and expense.

12
13

Plaintiff’s Position

14

Plaintiff contends that this request is procedurally improper because it is a request for

15

production of documents aimed at Plaintiff’s current litigation counsel and seeks attorney work

16

product.

17

Plaintiff’s current litigation counsel, they must issue a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 and be

18

prepared to defend the propriety of their action under Rule 11 and in response to a motion for a

19

protective order.

Plaintiff contends that if Defendants continue to request documents directly from

20

With respect to the request as to Plaintiff in her individual capacity, she is willing to

21

amend her response to indicate that there are no such documents. With respect as to the request

22

directed at Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff contends that despite the fact that the request is improper

23

it also seeks protected attorney work-product.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
16

1

Analysis and Ruling

2

As to the request directed at Plaintiff, Defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff

3

has represented that no such documents exist, and Plaintiff shall be required to amend her

4

response. As to the request directed at Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants’ motion to compel also is

5

DENIED for the reasons stated above regarding Request for Production No. 122.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 16, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17