Crawford et al v. Melzer et al

Filing 251

ORDER re 244 Status Report, filed by Horizon Foods, Inc., Kenneth L Crawford. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 11/17/2011. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

KENNETH L. CRAWFORD, and NEW
HORIZON FOODS, INC., a California
corporation,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ZACHARIA MELZER, YAEL MELZER, )
and TOVA INDUSTRIES, LLC, a
)
Kentucky limited liability company,

Case No.: C 10-00280 RS (PSG)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
STATUS CONFERENCE
(Re: Docket No. 244)

Defendants.
___________________________________

19
20

On November 16, 2011, Plaintiffs Kenneth Crawford and New Horizon Foods, Inc.

21

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Tova Industries, LLC, Zacharia Melzer and Yael Melzer

22

(“Defendants”) presented the court with their respective positions on the adequacy of Defendants’

23

response to two sets of discovery requests. Plaintiffs seek an order requiring (1) complete and non-

24

evasive supplemental responses from Yael Melzer and Tova Industries to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Set of

25

Special Interrogatories no. 25; (2) complete and non-evasive supplemental responses from all three

26

Defendants to Special Interrogatory no. 26; and (3) supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests

27

For Production (RFP) nos. 120 - 127.

28

Interrogatory nos. 25 and 26 address Defendants’ net worth and ask for a statement of net
ORDER, page 1

1

worth for each Defendant, as well as a detailed statement setting forth “every fact supporting or

2

evidencing your contentions as to your net worth, including the identification and value of all of

3

your assets and liabilities.” RFP nos. 120-127 request the production of those documents

4

“supporting or evidencing your net worth,” as stated in response to interrogatory no. 25, including

5

tax returns, documents evidencing shares of stock, interest in real property, outstanding loans or

6

debts, bank accounts, and generally “evidencing or setting forth any asset owned by you.”

7

Defendants contend that they have responded in full to these discovery requests by way of 1)

8

Zachariah Melzer’s verified interrogatory responses on behalf of himself and his wife and co-

9

defendant, Yael Melzer, and 2) the most recent financial statement for the Melzers (jointly) and for

10

Tova Industries. Defendants argue that the financial statements constitute “information about

11

[Defendants’] net worth” that is both responsive to the discovery requests and sufficient to comply

12

with the court’s April 28, 2011 order.1

13

Defendants have read the court’s April 28 order too narrowly. Providing a response to net

14

worth discovery that is limited to “present net worth” is not the equivalent of handing over a single

15

financial statement “snapshot” and foregoing responses to the related and relevant requests for the

16

supporting detail and documentation. While Defendants need not provide information relating to any

17

time period beyond the present year, Defendants are responsible for making reasonable efforts to

18

search for responsive documents – including those detailing the assets and liabilities described in the

19

statement of net worth or financial statement – and to provide complete responses. Accordingly,

20

Defendants are to supplement their responses as follows:

21

1.

Yael Melzer and Tova Industries each shall provide a verified response to interrogatory no. 25;

22

2.

Yael Melzer, Zachariah Melzer, and Tova Industries each shall provide a supplemental,
verified response to interrogatory no. 26, including specific references to supporting
documentation provided in response to the RFPs;

3.

Yael Melzer, Zachariah Melzer, and Tova Industries each shall produce all discovery
responsive to RFP nos. 120-127 for the present year only.

23
24
25

All supplemental interrogatory responses shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), and all responsive
26
documents or things shall be designated by Bates number. Defendants shall serve their supplemental
27
28

1

On April 28, 2011, the court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion for a protective order
regarding net worth discovery. See Docket No. 200 at 3-5.
ORDER, page 2

1

responses no later than December 19, 2011.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: November 17, 2011

5
6

PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER, page 3