Sajfr et al v. BBG Communications, Inc et al
Filing
93
ORDER denying without prejudice Motions to Compel 76 - 89 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 11/18/11. (cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VLASTIMIL SAJFR AND DAVID
KEEPORTS
12
Plaintiffs,
v.
13
14
15
BBG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND
DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 10cv2341 AJB (NLS)
ORDER DETERMINING JOINT
MOTIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE, DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL
[Doc. Nos. 76-89]
16
17
The parties filed 14 joint motions for determination of a discovery dispute. Through the
18
motions, plaintiff Vlastimil Sajfr seeks to compel defendant BBG Communications, Inc. (BBG) to
19
provide further responses to Requests for Admission (RFAs) and Requests for Production (RFPs). For
20
the following reasons, the court sustains certain of BBG’s objections to the discovery requests, and
21
denies Sajfr’s motions to compel without prejudice.
22
Relevant Background.
23
On June 30, 2011, BBG filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other issues, that
24
BBG is entitled to summary judgment because it is a wrongly-named defendant, and that there is no
25
alter ego relationship between BBG and BBG Global, A.G. (Global). [Dkt. No. 45.] Sajfr filed his
26
opposition to that motion November 10, 2011, arguing that there are enough disputed facts to defeat
27
BBG’s motion for summary judgment. [Dkt. No. 90.] The motion is set for hearing before Judge
28
Battaglia on December 16, 2011.
1
10-cv-2341 AJB NLS
1
Meanwhile, at least partly to alleviate some of the concerns raised in the summary judgment
2
motion, Sajfr filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add Global as a defendant. [Dkt.
3
No. 53.] BBG filed its opposition October 7, 2011, arguing that amendment is improper and that there
4
is no personal jurisdiction over Global in this district. [Dkt. No. 58.] That motion is also set for hearing
5
before Judge Battaglia on December 16, 2011.
6
The sole issue Sajfr raises in all 14 discovery motions is that BBG should supplement its
7
responses with information from Global and B-Tel Communications (B-Tel) because those companies
8
are under the control of BBG. BBG responds that those entities are not under its control and thus it
9
cannot respond to discovery on their behalf. BBG also argues the merits of certain of its other
10
objections stated in the responses. Sajfr does not address those other objections.
11
Motions to Compel Responses to RFAs.
12
Sajfr served seven sets of RFAs to BBG for a total of 163 RFAs. In those requests, Sajfr asks for
13
information that relates to the allegedly-affiliated Global and B-Tel companies. Sajfr argues BBG has
14
control over these entities because it admitted that the same family trusts own BBG and Global, and that
15
the same people who work for BBG also work for Global and B-Tel. Sajfr also points out that BBG has
16
obtained--without using subpoenas--declarations from employees of Global and B-Tel (submitted in
17
support of BBG’s summary judgment motion), further showing that those entities are under a common
18
ownership and control by BBG.
19
BBG argues that Global and B-Tel are not affiliates of, nor under the control of, BBG, so it
20
cannot respond to discovery on their behalf. BBG further argues the merits of its objections to the
21
RFAs, namely that the requests are irrelevant and that there is an excessive number of RFAs, in
22
violation of the local rules.
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Civil Local Rules set this limit on RFAs:
Limitation on Number of Requests for Admission. No party will serve
on any other party requests for admission which, including subparagraphs,
number more than twenty-five requests for admission without leave of
court. Any party desiring to serve additional requests for admission must
submit to the court a written memorandum setting forth the proposed
additional requests for admission and the reasons establishing good cause
for their use.
Civ. L.R. 36.1(a).
2
10-cv-2341 AJB NLS
1
The court finds that Sajfr violated the Local Rules in propounding more than 25 RFAs per party
2
without first seeking leave from the court. The court, therefore, sustains BBG’s objection based on
3
excessive number. Sajfr shall have leave to narrow the number of RFAs propounded to BBG.
4
Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs.
5
Sajfr served seven sets of RFPs to BBG. In the disputed RFPs, Sajfr asks for documents that
6
factually support any of BBG’s denials of RFAs, and that identify people who know facts that support
7
those denials. Sajfr argues that because Global and B-Tel are affiliated with and under the control of
8
BBG, BBG must also produce documents from those entities.
9
BBG argues that Global and B-Tel are not affiliates of, nor under the control of, BBG, so it
10
cannot respond to discovery on their behalf. BBG further argues the merits of certain of its objections to
11
the RFPs. Namely, it argues that the underlying RFAs are improper, and that the RFPs are overbroad
12
and burdensome because they do not describe with particularity the time or category of items to be
13
inspected.
14
15
16
The RFPs at issue in seven of the motions here mirror the following two specific RFPs:
RFP No. 1: For each of YOUR responses that is not an unqualified
admission to any of the requests contained in Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Requests for Admissions, produce all DOCUMENTS that provide any
factual support for such a denial.
17
18
19
RFP No. 2: For each of YOUR responses that is not an unqualified
admission to any of the requests contained in Plaintiffs’ First set of
Requests for Admissions, produce all DOCUMENTS that identify any
persons with knowledge of any facts that support such a denial.
20
The court finds that the RFPs at issue lack specificity or particularity, and thus are overbroad. See, e.g.,
21
Baker v. Perez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61828, *7, WL 2414501, *2-*3 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (RFP that seeks
22
“all documents that ‘support your denial in answer for amended complaints paragraph #43'” does not
23
describe with sufficient particularity the documents sought). The court, therefore, sustains BBG’s
24
objection that they are overbroad. Sajfr shall have leave to re-draft the RFPs so as to seek specific
25
categories of information.
26
Determination of “Control” Issue Relevant to All Motions.
27
28
Even after the discovery requests are re-crafted, the issue remains of whether BBG has control
over Global and/or B-Tel, to the extent that it can respond to discovery on their behalf. If Global and B3
10-cv-2341 AJB NLS
1
Tel are found to be under the control of BBG, BBG would have to respond to the discovery requests
2
with information and documents available from those entities. See, e.g., U.S. v. Int’l Union of
3
Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (compelling production
4
where actual control--i.e. the legal right to obtain documents upon demand--exists); U.S. ex rel. Englund
5
v. Los Angeles County, 235 F.R.D. 675, 684 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (in responding to RFAs party must inquire
6
of persons and documents within its control such as “its employees, partners, corporate affiliates, etc.”).
7
This court finds that at least some of factual determinations regarding control, and possibly some
8
legal conclusions regarding control, may be determined through one or both of the motions currently
9
before Judge Battaglia. To ask this court to make such determinations in the discovery context at this
10
time is premature, given that the issue of whether BBG controls these other entities, is already, at least
11
in part, before Judge Battaglia. Further, Global may become a party to this action, which could moot the
12
issue as to that entity. Therefore, in the interest of judicial efficiency, this court denies without
13
prejudice the motions to compel based on the “control” issue. Further, because Sajfr has already
14
opposed the summary judgment motion and filed a motion for leave to amend without the benefit of this
15
discovery, and has not filed a formal request to continue those hearings pending the determination of the
16
“control” issue, the court sees no prejudice to Sajfr in denying the motions without prejudice.
17
Order.
18
For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS:
19
1.
BBG’s objection that the RFAs are too numerous is SUSTAINED.
20
2.
BBG’s objection that the RFPs are overbroad is SUSTAINED.
21
3.
Sajfr shall have leave to narrow the number of RFAs and re-write the RFPs so as to seek
22
specific categories of information, and shall serve those amended discovery requests within 30 days of
23
Judge Battaglia issuing orders on the motions for summary judgment and leave to amend.
24
25
4.
The court DENIES all 14 discovery motions without prejudice to re-filing them after the
following has occurred:
26
(a) adjudication of the two motions before Judge Battaglia;
27
(b) service of amended discovery requests so as to comply with this order; and
28
(c) a renewed meet and confer on the amended discovery requests.
4
10-cv-2341 AJB NLS
1
5.
Any future joint motions shall be consolidated into a single joint motion, in a single
2
document, if the legal argument applying to the discovery requests at issue is identical for each
3
discovery request (e.g. all seven RFA joint motions should have been presented in a single document
4
with a single argument section, and the same for the seven RFP joint motions).
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: November 18, 2011
7
8
9
Hon. Nita L. Stormes
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
10-cv-2341 AJB NLS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?