Freaner v. Lutteroth Valle et al

Filing 49

ORDER on 48 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Further responses, as provided in the attached Order, must be served no later than fourteen (14) days from today absent agreement of the parties or further Order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 7/2/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

ARIEL FREANER

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
ENRIQUE MARIN LUTTEROTH
)
VALLE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________ )

Case No. 11cv1819-JLS (MDD)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[DOC. NO. 48]

16
Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties, filed on June 21, 2012, for
17
a determination of a discovery dispute. (Doc. No. 48). The dispute pertains to one
18
interrogatory and two requests for admission propounded by Defendants to
19
Plaintiff.
20
Legal Standard
21
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery,
22
authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is
23
relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good
24
cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
25
involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for discovery purposes includes
26
any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
27
evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no
28
requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the
11cv1819-JLS (MDD)

1

case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably

2

lead to matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case.

3

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have

4

broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v.

5

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad

6

discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably

7

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

8

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits

9

also should be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits.

10
11

Id.
“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired under Rule

12

26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must answer each

13

interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with specificity or by

14

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b). The

15

responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an

16

interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records available

17

to the interrogating party. Rule 33(d).

18

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, “[a] party may serve on any other party a written

19

request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters

20

within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) . . . .” Rule 36(a)(1). The responding party, if it does

21

not admit a request,

22

“must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party
cannot truthfully admit or deny it. . . . The answering party may assert
lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or
deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and
that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to
enable it to admit or deny.”
Rule 36(a)(4).

23
24
25
26
27
28

Discussion
Plaintiff has sued Defendants alleging, among other things, that he was not
paid for certain services rendered beyond the scope of a contractual agreement
2

11cv1819-JLS (MDD)

1

between the parties. Defendants have counterclaimed alleging that Plaintiff failed

2

to perform certain contractual duties. (Doc. Nos. 1, 7).

3

1. Interrogatory No. 8

4

Defendants request Plaintiff to describe in detail all authorizations that he

5

received to perform services outside the scope of the agreement pursuant to which

6

he was paid $4,000 per month. In response, using the provisions of Rule 33(d),

7

Plaintiff referred Defendants to certain documents that he produced in discovery.

8

The dispute is based upon what Plaintiff said next:

9

“Other emails previously produced may also confirm the various ‘extra
work’ projects. In addition, [Defendants], through [their] authorized
agents, requested additional services verbally. Discovery is
continuing.”
(Doc. No. 48 at 2).

10
11
12

Defendants seek a further response on the grounds that the reference to

13

“other emails” fails to comply with Rule 33(d) and the reference to verbal

14

authorizations is an insufficient answer. Plaintiff opposes on the grounds that there

15

are hundreds of emails between the parties regarding various projects and that

16

Plaintiff has identified the “extra work” for which he has not been paid. Id. at 3.

17

The Court finds that the challenged portion of Plaintiff’s response is

18

inadequate and requires a further response. Plaintiff is ORDERED to identify with

19

specificity any emails previously produced that are responsive to the Interrogatory

20

and to describe, in detail, all requests for services transmitted verbally that

21

resulted in work being performed for which he alleges he has not been paid.

22

2. Request for Admission No. 13

23

Defendants have requested that Plaintiff admit that he failed to deliver to

24

Defendants all of the printed materials that it paid for. Plaintiff responded that he

25

believes that he delivered all of the printed materials that were paid for by

26

Defendants but lacks sufficient knowledge or information necessary to fully admit

27

or deny after making a reasonable inquiry into his own knowledge or information

28

readily available. (Doc. No. 48 at 3-4). Defendants seek a further response because
3

11cv1819-JLS (MDD)

1

Plaintiff has claimed that Defendants failed to pay him. Plaintiff asserts that he

2

cannot respond as phrased inasmuch as there were different categories of printed

3

materials ordered and delivered. Id.

4
5

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this request is too general. No further
response is required.

6

3. Request for Admission No. 14

7

Defendants request that Plaintiff admit that Defendants paid him at least

8

$179,882.68, consisting of 12 monthly payments of $4,000 per month and

9

$131,882.68 upon invoices issued by Plaintiff since July 2009. Plaintiff responded

10

that the figures appear accurate but that he lacks sufficient knowledge or

11

information to fully admit or deny. Defendants challenge this response as

12

inadequate considering that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants failed to pay him

13

for services rendered. Plaintiff counters that he does not have the necessary

14

documentation in order to admit or deny with certainty. (Doc. No. 48 at 4-5).

15

Plaintiff’s response is insufficient. Absent a detailed explanation to the

16

contrary, Plaintiff’s own bank and business records are documents that he can

17

“readily obtain” within the meaning of Rule 36(a)(4). Plaintiff is ORDERED to

18

admit or deny this request as required by Rule 36(a)(4).
Conclusion

19
20

As provided above, Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond further to

21

Interrogatory No. 8 and Request for Admission No. 14. Such response must be

22

served no later than fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this Order.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED:

24

DATED: July 2, 2012

25
26

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

27
28
4

11cv1819-JLS (MDD)