Gonzalez et al v. Totah Family Partnership

Filing 28

ORDER Regarding 17 Ex Parte Motion to Compel filed by the Plaintiffs. A Telephonic Conference is scheduled for 6/14/2011 at 1:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/31/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO GONZALEZ and DELIA
GONZALEZ,

12

Civil No.

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL
[Doc. No. 17]

v.
TOTAH FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a
California Limited Partnership, doing business
as RIVER’S EDGE R.V. RESORT,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10cv2012-MMA (CAB)

Defendant.
On May 23, 2011, the Court held a Mandatory Settlement Conference in this case. The case
did not settle, so the Court heard the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses. [Doc. No. 17.]
Defendant submitted an opposition. [Doc. No. 23.] Plaintiffs submitted a reply. [Doc.No. 24.] Stuart
Fagan, Esq., appeared for plaintiffs. Robert Quayle, Esq., appeared for defendant.
Plaintiffs propounded Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents on
defendant on February 8, 2011. Defendant served responses and objections on March 28, 2011.
Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 11 and 15-17, and for further
responses to document Requests Nos. 2-6, 10-11, 21-22, 25, 31-34, 43, 46-51, 57-59.
This is a housing discrimination case based on national origin and familial status. Plaintiffs
claim they were treated in a discriminatory manner and eventually evicted from defendant’s R.V.
Resort property because they have children and are Hispanic. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for the
alleged violations of their civil rights. The plaintiffs contend that the discovery they seek is relevant
1

10cv2012

1

to their claims and any privacy interests of third parties is outweighed by their need for the discovery.

2

Defendants object contending the privacy rights of third parties outweigh plaintiffs’ interests and/or

3

the discovery sought is not relevant.

4

Interrogatories

5

Interrogatory No. 1 requests the identity of any residential real property owned by the defendant in

6

part or full at any time since January 1, 2006. The defendant objected based on financial privacy

7

interests. The motion to compel a further response to this interrogatory is DENIED without prejudice.

8

If evidence demonstrates a policy or practice of discrimination, beyond plaintiffs’ allegations, at the

9

rental property at issue, plaintiffs may renew this motion to pursue information regarding other rental

10

properties owned by defendants.

11
12

Interrogatory No. 2 requests the defendant’s net worth. Plaintiffs seek this as relevant to their

13

punitive damage claims. Defendant does not deny that the information is relevant, however Defendant

14

represents that it intends to challenge plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations by motion practice. The

15

motion to compel further a response to Interrogatory No. 2 is GRANTED as follows. If no motion

16

is filed by October 31, 2011, defendant will provide the requested net worth information no later than

17

November 7, 2011. If defendant’s motion is denied, the defendant will provide requested net worth

18

information no later than seven days after the order denying the motion is filed.

19
20

Interrogatory No. 3 requests defendant identify any discrimination complaints ever made against it.

21

Defendant objected to the breadth of the request, as it was without time limitations and responded for

22

the past five years. Plaintiff contend that five years is an arbitrary cutoff and requested further records.

23

The motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is GRANTED. Defendant shall

24

identify any discrimination complaints made against it from January 2000 to the present. The response

25

will be provided no later than June 10, 2011.

26
27

Interrogatories Nos. 4-6 generally request the defendant identify the type of records and

28

documentation maintained by defendant regarding operation of the property at issue. Defendant

2

10cv2012

1

withdrew its objection with the understanding plaintiffs are asking defendant to describe the “nature

2

of the documents used at the rental premises,” not the documents themselves, and agreed to provided

3

supplemental responses. The responses will be provided no later than June 10, 2011.

4
5

Interrogatory No. 11 requests information about the racial composition of tenants during various time

6

periods at the rental premises at issue. Defendant objected based on privacy rights, but also

7

acknowledged it has no records regarding racial composition of the park tenants and is therefore

8

unable to respond. The motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 11 is GRANTED,

9

in so far as defendant will provided its verified response setting forth its representation that it has no

10

records to formulate a response. The response will be provided no later than June 10, 2011.

11
12

Interrogatories Nos. 15-17 request the defendant identify all applicants for and tenants of spaces at

13

the park from January 1, 2009. Defendant objected on the basis of the privacy rights of these third

14

parties not to have their personal information shared without their consent. Plaintiffs contend that they

15

are witnesses and their identities are not confidential. The Court finds the matter more complex than

16

plaintiffs’ analysis.

17

There are potentially hundreds of individuals who applied for or stayed at the RV park since

18

January 1, 2009. Records regarding these individuals are not in a data base according to the defendant,

19

but are paper records. Some stayed for a very brief time, some for extended periods. They provided

20

personal information (name, address, phone number, email account) to the defendant much like a guest

21

would provide such information to hotel. The Court finds that these third-parties have a reasonable

22

expectation of privacy in their personal contact information. The Court also recognizes the plaintiffs’

23

interest in contacting these individuals to determine if they have any information relevant to this

24

litigation.

25

The defendant is instructed to compile a list of the applicants and tenants for the requested

26

time period. Counsel for the defendant will prepare a notice letter to be forwarded to these third-

27

parties informing them of the lawsuit, the nature of the action and that their contact information is

28

being provided to plaintiffs’ counsel. The third-parties will be provided contact information for both

3

10cv2012

1

counsel if they should have any questions or concerns. A telephonic conference is scheduled for

2

June 14, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. to address the status of the compilation of the list, the timing of the

3

mailing of the notification and when plaintiffs’ counsel may begin contacting third parties.

4

Requests for Production of Documents

5
6

Document Request No. 13 seeks documents regarding discrimination complaints against defendant.

7

Defendant has produced the documents regarding plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendant has stated there

8

were no other complaints in the last five years. Defendant has been ordered to supplement its related

9

interrogatory response (No. 3) back to January 2000.

10

For any complaints identified in the

supplemental interrogatory response, related documents will be produced no later than June 17, 2011.

11
12

Document Requests Nos. 16-20 seek documents regarding the defendant’s net worth. Responsive

13

documents will be produced in accordance with the schedule set forth regarding further responses to

14

Interrogatory No. 2, above.

15
16

Document Requests Nos. 2-6 seek records of tenants and applicants. The defendant’s objections

17

regarding the privacy interests of the third-parties are sustained. The motion to compel is DENIED.

18
19

Document Requests Nos. 10-11 seek personnel files and contact information for former employees

20

of defendant. The defendant’s objections regarding the privacy interests of these third-parties and

21

relevance are sustained. The motion to compel is DENIED.

22
23

Document Request No. 21 seeks any documents regarding the familial status of any tenant or

24

prospective tenant who rented or sought to rent space at the RV park. The motion to compel is

25

GRANTED. Defendant is instructed to produce responsive, non-privileged documents no later than

26

June 17, 2011.

27
28

Document Request No. 22 seeks any documents regarding the age of any tenant or prospective tenant

4

10cv2012

1

who rented or sought to rent space at the RV park. There are no allegations of age discrimination in

2

this case. The motion to compel is DENIED.

3
4

Document Request No. 25 seeks any documents regarding restrictions on renting to persons 55 years

5

of age or older since September 1988. There are no allegations of age discrimination in this case and

6

the time period requested is excessive. The motion to compel is DENIED.

7
8

Document Requests Nos. 31-32 seek documents regarding any complaint made by any tenant against

9

the management of the RV Park or against any other tenant. The defendant’s objections are sustained.

10

The requests are overbroad and seek information not relevant to the claims in this case. The motion

11

to compel is DENIED.

12
13

Document Requests Nos. 33-34 seek documents regarding the operation of the RV Park since January

14

1, 2008. The defendant’s objections are sustained. The requests are overbroad and seek information

15

not relevant to the claims in this case. The motion to compel is DENIED.

16
17

Document Request No. 43 seeks all eviction documents for the purpose of terminating the tenancy

18

of any resident of the RV Park. The defendant’s objections are sustained. The request is overbroad

19

and seeks information not relevant to the claims in this case. The motion to compel is DENIED.

20
21

Document Requests Nos. 46 and 48 seek contracts and performance reports for any resident manager

22

of the RV Park since January 1, 2006. The only resident manager with whom plaintiffs interacted was

23

Tom Walker. The defendant’s objections regarding production of the personal information of other

24

managers is sustained. The motion to compel is DENIED.

25
26

Document Request No. 47 seeks documents regarding the duties and responsibilities of the resident

27

manager at the RV Park. The motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is instructed to produce

28

responsive, non-privileged documents no later than June 17, 2011.

5

10cv2012

1

Document Request No. 49 seeks documents regarding the duties and responsibilities of the resident

2

manager Tom Walker at the RV Park. The motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is instructed

3

to produce responsive, non-privileged documents no later than June 17, 2011.

4
5

Document Requests Nos. 50-51 seek documents regarding Tom Walker’s performance and his

6

employment contract. The motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is instructed to produce

7

responsive, non-privileged documents no later than June 17, 2011. Mr. Walker’s confidential

8

information (such as his address, phone number, social security) may be redacted from his personnel

9

file and contract.

10
11

Document Request No. 57 seeks all fictitious business statements filed by defendant since September

12

1998. Defendant’s objection that the time period requested is excessive is sustained. The motion to

13

compel is DENIED.

14
15

Document Requests Nos. 58-59 seek records of third-party tenants. The defendant’s objections

16

regarding the privacy interests of the third-parties are sustained. The motion to compel is DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

DATED: May 31, 2011

20
21

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

10cv2012