Blanton et al v. Torrey Pines Property Management, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER on Discovery Dispute No. 3: granting in part and denying in part 86 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 5/24/2017. (jao)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONYA BLANTON and DIANE JOA, Case No.: 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 3: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL TORREY PINES PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 [Dkt. No. 86] 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 19 Dispute No. 3. ECF No. 86. Having considered the arguments presented by both parties 20 and for the reasons set forth herein and as detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART 21 and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to Requests for 22 Admission Nos. 1-36, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s 23 motion to compel further responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set 24 Three), Nos. 29-42. 25 26 I. Background This case presents claims related to the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and alleged 27 discrimination based on familial status. See ECF No. 29. This is the Third Discovery 28 Dispute presented by the parties. Plaintiffs move to compel answers to Requests for 1 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 Admission and documents pursuant to Requests for Production from defendant Torrey 2 Pines Property Management (“TPPM”) as set forth in greater detail below. 3 II. 4 Plaintiffs both appear to move to compel responses from TPPM. See ECF No. 86 5 (using “Plaintiffs” throughout). The Requests for Admission were served by “Plaintiffs” 6 jointly. ECF No. 86-6, Ex. 1; but see, ECF No. 86, pg. 1:26. The Requests for 7 Production appear to have been served in Ms. Blanton’s name only. ECF No. 86-6, Ex. 8 4. Accordingly, Ms. Blanton has standing to compel responses to both the Requests for 9 Admissions and the Requests for Production. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F. 3d 503, 510 10 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Only ‘the discovering party’ … may bring a motion to compel.”); Loop 11 AI Labs v. Gatti, No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR), 2016 WL 4474584, 2016 U.S. Dist. 12 LEXIS 114247, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) (“under Rule 37(a) … a party lacks 13 standing to move to compel answers to a different party's discovery requests”). Standing As to Ms. Joa’s ability to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, the 14 15 information and documents Plaintiffs request TPPM admit to have relevance only to the 16 Fair Housing Act based claims to show a “pattern and practice.” ECF 86 at 4:21-26. Ms. 17 Joa is no longer asserting FHA claims and the Requests for Admission have no relevance 18 to her remaining claims. ECF No. 84; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Likewise, she did not 19 propound the Requests for Production. Thus, to the extent Ms. Joa seeks to compel 20 responses to either the Requests for Admission or the Requests for Production, the 21 motion is DENIED. 22 The Court will proceed with the motion as asserted by Ms. Blanton only. 23 III. 24 The parties disagree on whether the discovery dispute relating to the Requests for 25 Compliance with Local Rules Production of Documents is properly before the Court.1 TPPM argues that the Local 26 27 28 1 The parties raise no issue as to the Requests for Admission. 2 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 Rules prohibit the motion to compel because the Plaintiff failed to meet and confer 2 regarding the Requests for Production at issue. ECF No. 86, pg. 12:13-15. TPPM also 3 argues that the dispute is untimely because the meet and confer was not completed prior 4 to the discovery cut off. ECF No. 86, pg. 14:10-14. 5 Plaintiff counters that she (1) believed that meet and confer efforts had been 6 exhausted regarding the document requests and (2) Defendant could have brought the 7 lack of meet and confer to Plaintiff’s counsel’s attention prior to the day of filing of the 8 dispute. ECF No. 86, pg. 2, 7-15. 9 A. The Discovery Dispute is Timely 10 The Court first addresses the timeliness of the motion as to the Requests for 11 Production. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Discovery cut-off date was November 12 30, 2017. ECF No. 51, ¶ 2. All discovery was to be completed by that time. Id. The 13 Scheduling Order goes on to state, 14 15 16 17 18 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 Id (emphasis added). The Scheduling Order directs that responses be required on or 20 before the discovery cut-off date. Neither the Scheduling Order, nor the Local Rules, nor 21 the Chamber Rules require that a discovery motion be filed prior to the discovery cut off, 22 or that the occurrence of the discovery cut-off prevents a motion to compel further 23 responses that were timely propounded within the discovery period. See, Judge Stormes 24 Civil Case Procedures, VI.C.2.b (“For Written Discovery: the event giving rise to the 25 discovery dispute is the service of the initial response…”) (emphasis added). This is 26 distinguishable from the situation in which responses are not initially due until a few days 27 following the discovery cut off. See, e.g., ECF No. 86-6, Exs. 7-8. 28 3 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 TPPM’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents were initially served 2 on November 28, 2016; properly within the discovery period provided under the 3 Scheduling Order. ECF No. 86-6, Ex. 4. In the following 45 days, the parties jointly 4 moved to extend the deadline to file a discovery dispute regarding Request for Production 5 Nos. 29-42 due to the pending motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 70. The Court granted that 6 request. ECF No. 71. This dispute is timely filed following the decision upon the motion 7 to dismiss. ECF No. 71 (permitting dispute to be filed 3 weeks following the decision on 8 the motion to dismiss). This discovery dispute is timely before the Court. 9 B. The Meet and Confer Efforts of Both Parties are Lacking 10 The applicable Local and Chambers rules require the parties to meet and confer in 11 person if located in the same county; and permit telephonic or video conferencing where 12 counsel are different districts. CivLR 26.1(a); Judge Stormes Civil Case Procedures, 13 VI.A. Under this rule the parties should, at a minimum, be in agreement as to whether or 14 not a meet and confer conference occurred. Here, the parties present conflicting 15 accounts. 16 TPPM contends that, while the parties met and conferred regarding a separate set 17 of Requests for Production (also erroneously titled “Set Three” but numbered 29-39), no 18 meet and confer conference occurred for Request for Production Set Three, Nos. 29-42. 19 ECF No. 86 at G.1. TPPM concedes that Plaintiff sought to schedule a time to meet and 20 confer prior to the submission of a request for extension of time to file the dispute. Id. 21 TPPM argues that Plaintiff’s failure to follow through on the meet and confer violates 22 Local Rule 26.1(a) and so, Plaintiff’s motion to compel supplemental responses should be 23 denied. Id. 24 Plaintiff’s response is simply that it was Plaintiff’s “understanding that the meet 25 and confer process for the Requests to Produce Nos. 29-42 had been exhausted.” ECF 26 No. 86, pg. 2:7-8. This statement is ambiguous, and is not an adequate declaration of 27 compliance that a meet and confer conference occurred. CivLR 26.1. However, it also 28 implies that the parties had discussions sufficient for Plaintiff to understand that the meet 4 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 and confer efforts were “exhausted.” Considering TPPM’s position that any meet and 2 confer was untimely (see ECF 86, pg. 12:25-13:7) the Court can see why Plaintiff 3 believed meet and confer efforts had been exhausted. 4 Plaintiff also notes that Defendant failed to bring the meet and confer issue to 5 Plaintiff’s attention until the day of filing. Id. at pg. 2:11-13. This is true, practical, and 6 consistent with the intent of the Local Rules and the duties of counsel to comply with 7 them. CivLR, 1.1(c), 26.1(a), (d); Judge Stormes Civil Case Procedures, IV.A, IX. 8 TPPM’s failure to raise this issue prior to the time of filing is a factor the Court considers. 9 Under the circumstances, the Court is guided by CivLR 16.1(d), to secure the just, 10 efficient, and economical determination of this dispute. The Court is not optimistic that a 11 direction to the parties to properly meet and confer and refile this dispute (if necessary) 12 will conserve resources for the Court or the parties. Fact discovery has closed, and the 13 time for the parties to file any further discovery disputes concluded May 11, 2017. ECF 14 Nos. 69, 71. Under these circumstances, in light of CivLR 26.1(d) and (e), and in the 15 interests of justice and expediency, the Court will address the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion 16 to Compel regarding Request for Production Set Three, Nos. 29-42. 17 IV. 18 Requests for Admission (Set One), Nos. 1-36 A. Legal Standard Like all discovery, Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) are bound by the scope of 19 20 Rule 26 requiring discovery to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. 21 R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). RFAs are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, which 22 states: 23 24 25 26 27 28 A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for the purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and [¶] (B) the genuineness of any described document. Rule 36 does not limit the number of RFAs that may be propounded, however, the Court's Local Rules do. Civil Local Rule 36.1 states: 5 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 5 No party will serve on any other party requests for admission which, including subparagraphs, number more than twentyfive 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. 6 CivLR 36.1(a) (emphasis added). See also Fed.R.Civ.P 26(b)(2)(A) (authorizing district 7 courts to limit the number of requests under Rule 36 by local rule.) 2 3 4 8 9 The party responding to RFAs may either answer or object. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(4), (5). The requesting party may then move to determine the sufficiency of answers 10 or objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(6). If a party provides an answer, it must admit, 11 deny, or state in detail why the party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. 12 Fed.R.Civ.P 36(a)(4). Qualified answers are proper if the responding party specifies the 13 part admitted and qualifies or denies the rest. Id. The responding party may also assert 14 lack of sufficient information or knowledge as a reason for failing to admit or deny the 15 matter, as long as the party states that “it has made reasonable inquiry and that the 16 information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” 17 Id. 18 19 B. Relevant Facts Plaintiff issued 36 Requests for Admission relating to documents obtained from the 20 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and the time periods in which 21 certain Rental Application Guidelines were in effect. ECF Nos. 86 at pg. 4:17-21; 86-6, 22 Ex. 1. TPPM responded to the requests with objections only. ECF No. 86-6, Ex. 2. 23 Plaintiff argues that TPPM’s objections do not comply with Rule 36 because the 24 objections did not explain why the information was not within TPPM’s ability to admit or 25 deny. ECF No. 86 at pg. 5:20-23. Plaintiff asserts answers to the RFAs are necessary 26 because they establish “pattern and practice” evidence for the discrimination claim, and 27 also show TPPM made inaccurate representations about the availability of the properties. 28 See ECF No. 86, Joint Statement, passim. Plaintiff further argues that the Order on 6 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 Discovery Dispute No. 1 (ECF No. 56) does not preclude Plaintiff from having or 2 authenticating the DFEH documents. ECF No. 86 at pg. 6:2-10. 3 TPPM counters that no further response is necessary because the documents are 4 from an unrelated case, Cheng v. Torrey Pines, et al., and therefore irrelevant to this 5 matter. TPPM cites to this Court’s order on Discover Dispute No. 1 (ECF No. 56) as 6 authority for the irrelevance of the Cheng case to the instant action. TPPM also argues 7 that Ms. Blanton’s stated reason for pursuing the discovery, that TPPM intentionally 8 misrepresents the availability of units, is not supported by any allegations in her pleading. 9 ECF No 86, pg. 12:1-10. 10 C. Discussion 11 The documents Plaintiff obtained from the DEFH demonstrate prior complaints 12 based upon the occupancy policy at issue in this action, some of which are verified by 13 TPPM personnel. Contrary to the situation presented by Discovery Dispute No. 1, 14 Plaintiff can now demonstrate the relevance of the documents and the DEFH action. See, 15 ECF No. 56, at III (c). Each of the RFAs and the parties’ arguments will be addressed in 16 turn. 17 RFA Nos. 1 – 2 (Exhibit 1) 18 RFA Nos. 1 and 2 seek to authenticate and confirm the accuracy of a property list 19 of TPPM, attached as Exhibit 1 thereto. As has been established, statistical data is 20 relevant to a claim for disparate impact. Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 21 1118 (9th Cir. 2008). In order to establish a point of comparison for purposes of 22 statistical analysis, the number of properties managed by TPPM at the time period of the 23 allegations in the complaint is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff’s request to 24 authenticate and confirm the accuracy of the property list attached as Exhibit 1, which 25 includes the El Cajon properties managed by TPPM and subject to the occupancy policy 26 at issue, is relevant to the claims in Ms. Blanton’s remaining complaint. 27 28 RFA Nos. 1 and 2 seeks to confirm the accuracy of a document legally obtained by Plaintiff and relevant to the claim asserted in this action. Plaintiff’s request to compel 7 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 answers to RFA Nos. 1 and 2 are GRANTED; TPPM is to serve answers consistent with 2 Rule 36 (a)(4). 3 RFA Nos. 4-7, 10, 12, 15-16 (Exhibits 3-6, 8, 10, 13-14) 4 RFA Nos. 4 through 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16 request TPPM authenticate documents 5 by confirming that documents attached as Exhibits 3-6, 8, 10, and 13-14 are true and 6 correct copies of documents provided by TPPM to the DFEH. The exhibits consist of 7 several documents that contain verified responses from TPPM and/or seek to authenticate 8 relevant information such as Rental Guidelines, insurance policies, or the existence of 9 prior complaints. These requests are proper and seek to establish the genuineness of 10 documents and facts relevant to the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(1)(A), (B). Accordingly, 11 Plaintiff’s request to compel answers to RFA Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are 12 GRANTED; TPPM is to serve answers consistent with Rule 36(a)(4). 13 RFA Nos. 3, 8-9 (Exhibits 2, 7) 14 Conversely, some of the documents attached have no demonstrable relevance to 15 the action. For instance, RFA No. 3 addresses Exhibit 2, “Respondent Buttonwood 2012 16 Trust and/or Buttonwood Investment Group, LP’s [“Buttonwood”] Responses to 17 Complainant Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s Requests for Information.” 18 Buttonwood is not a party to this action and the contents of this document are duplicative 19 of requests issued to TPPM. This document is unnecessary and therefore 20 disproportionate to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1). Plaintiff fails to 21 provide any argument as to why responses from solely Buttonwood, who is not a party 22 here, regarding another property, may be relevant or admissible. See ECF No. 86, Joint 23 Statement at pg. 20:24-21:8 (referring only to “TPPM” throughout). Accordingly, 24 Plaintiff’s request to compel an answer to RFA No. 3 is DENIED. 25 RFA Nos. 8 and 9 seek to confirm that the documents attached as Exhibit 7 were 26 provided to the DEFH, and the accuracy of the information contained therein. There is 27 no context surrounding these documents, they are not attached to or referenced in any 28 request or response. However, the Dominguez Way apartments are listed among the 8 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 pages, as are move in and move out dates for the units listed. The documents also 2 contain a Bates Stamp including TPPM (“W/TPPM/BWP 000352-381”). 3 Without any further information about what these documents purport to show, 4 relevance cannot be determined. The documents do not show the number of occupants, 5 whether any are/were families, or the size of the unit. Further, as TPPM points out, the 6 move-in and move-out dates also do not necessarily correlate with vacancy and a theory 7 of misrepresentation is not alleged in the operative complaint. ECF No. 86 at II.H, Joint 8 Statement, pgs. 29-32; ECF No. 86-6, ¶ 18. Plaintiff’s request to compel answers to RFA 9 Nos. 8 and 9 are DENIED. 10 RFA Nos. 11, 13, 14 (Exhibits 9, 11, 12) 11 Exhibits 9, 11 and 12 attach inquiry forms filled out by interested potential 12 applicants/tenants. The forms are, in sum, requests for information and not applications. 13 Such forms could be filled out by numerous persons with no intent of ever renting, and 14 Plaintiff offers no correlation between such forms and tenancy. Plaintiff has failed to 15 demonstrate the relevance of these forms to the current action. See ECF No 86, Joint 16 Statement, pgs. 34:27-35:11, 38:13-15, 40:6-18. Plaintiff’s request to compel answers to 17 RFA Nos. 11, 13, and 14 are DENIED. 18 RFA Nos. 17-25 (Exhibits 15-16) 19 Exhibits 15-16 attach various iterations of TPPM’s Rental Application Guidelines, 20 some of which include reference to the occupancy standards relevant to this litigation. 21 RFAs 17-25 seek to authenticate the Rental Application Guidelines and establish they 22 have been in use at some point during the time period relevant to the litigation. These 23 requests are proper and seek to establish the genuineness of documents and facts relevant 24 to the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(1)(A), (B). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel 25 answers to RFA Nos. 17-25 are GRANTED; TPPM is to serve answers consistent with 26 Rule 36 (a)(4). 27 /// 28 /// 9 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 RFA Nos. 26-36 2 The docket does not reflect that Plaintiff ever sought leave of Court to exceed the 3 25 RFA limit provided in Local Rule 36.1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to 4 RFAs Nos. 26-36 are DENIED. 5 6 V. Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), Nos. 29-42 A. Legal Standard 7 Parties can obtain discovery of non-privileged information so long as it “is relevant 8 to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case….” Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 26(b)(1). Discoverable information need not be admissible. Id. 10 Under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve a request 11 to produce all relevant documents or electronically stored information, or any designated 12 tangible things, in the responding party's “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 34(a)(1). “A party need not have actual possession of documents to be deemed in 14 control of them.” Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 1998) 15 quoting Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294 (D. Nev. 1991); see also, 16 National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc., 256 F.R.D. at 682 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 17 Feb 25, 2009) (holding where a party “has the legal right to obtain the documents on 18 demand” the documents are within its possession, custody or control). To be compelled 19 to respond, the non-moving party must have the ability “to command release of the 20 documents by the person or entity in actual possession,” which “usually is the result of 21 statute, affiliation or employment.” Id. Thus, “[a] party responding to a Rule 22 34 production request ... ‘is under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably 23 available to [it] from [its] employees, agents, or others subject to [its] control.’ ” Gray v. 24 Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223 (N.D. Ind. 1992) (citation omitted). 25 The party responding to a request for production of documents has an obligation to 26 conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its responses to the request to 27 produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Any objection must “state whether any 28 10 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 2 (b)(2)(C). 3 B. Relevant Facts 4 Plaintiff issued various Requests for Production (RFPs) based, in part, on the 5 deposition testimony of named defendant, Ms. Peggy Warny, and employee of TPPM. 6 See ECF No. 29, ¶ 7. During Ms. Warny’s deposition, she testified regarding her 7 personal practices of keeping daily logs and applications of tenants who were ultimately 8 denied. ECF No. 86-3. She also testified to the receipt of various documents she referred 9 to as similar to “handouts” she received during her training that were “update[d]” 10 throughout her tenure as the on-site manager. Id. 11 Plaintiff argues the documents sought are relevant to the action, and may show 12 other instances of occupancy policy violations, the development of the occupancy 13 standard, and details specific to Ms. Blanton’s eviction. Plaintiff also argues that TPPM’s 14 responses fail to comply with Rule 34. 15 TPPM argues primarily that Plaintiff should be procedurally precluded from 16 compelling further responses. See, ECF No. 86, at pgs. 12-14 and Joint Statement, at pgs. 17 80-86. TPPM also raises objections based upon relevance, privacy, confidentiality, and 18 over-breadth. Having addressed the procedural aspects herein at Sections II and III, the 19 Court turns to the substance of the RFPs and objections. 20 C. Discussion TPPM’s responses, by and large, fail to meet requirements of Rule 34. Amended 21 22 responses and further production are appropriate, as set forth herein. 23 RFP 29 24 RFP 29 requests the complete tenant file of Mr. Zachary Cuevas.2 In response, 25 TPPM offered objections and produced the Cuevas lease, application, and a screen grab 26 27 2 28 Neither party provides helpful context on who Mr. Cuevas is, but it is clear that he is a tenant of TPPM’s of sufficient relevance for his lease, application, and approval to be produced. 11 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 showing when approved. Plaintiff argues this is incomplete and that the complete tenant 2 file would show “how TPPM used its occupancy policy.” This request appears to seek 3 relevant information. Accordingly, the burden shifts to TPPM to support its objections. 4 Superior Commc'ns v. Earhugger, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 215, 217 (C.D.Cal.2009) (“The party 5 who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be allowed, and has 6 the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”) 7 TPPM’s remaining (non-relevance) objections relate to privacy and confidentiality, 8 over-breadth, and harassment. TPPM does not articulate how or why the tenant file 9 would be over-broad or harassing. To the extent the tenant file may contain sensitive 10 financial information (e.g., credit report of the applicant), the objection to privacy and 11 confidentiality are well founded. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 13 IN PART. TPPM is to produce Mr. Cuevas’s complete tenant file in redacted form. 14 Redactions may omit Mr. Cuevas financial information; telephone number; or other 15 personal identifying information as appropriate and required (e.g., social security 16 number). See also, ECF No. 56, pg. 8-10 (Order on Joint Discovery Dispute No. 1, 17 addressing Third Party Privacy). Redactions of the entire content of a page must permit 18 Plaintiff to identify the type of document (e.g. a credit report) without revealing the 19 substance of same. 20 RFP 35 21 RFP 35 requests written training materials provided to on-site managers from 22 2011-2013. TPPM responded with objections, and without waiving objection, agreed to 23 produce all materials provided to Ms. Warny. Plaintiff believes that the documents 24 provided were incomplete, and provides as an example a specific page (DEF003847) 25 attached as Exhibit 1 to Mr. Butler’s declaration. 26 The policies of TPPM and directions for enforcement as provided to on-site 27 managers is relevant to the action, but TPPM’s response to limit the production to 28 documents provided to Ms. Warny properly narrows the scope of the request. However, 12 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 all relevant documents provided to Ms. Warny must be provided and the Court agrees 2 that Exhibit 1 to Mr. Butler’s declaration appears to exclude relevant information relating 3 to the occupancy standard. 4 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP 35 is GRANTED. TPPM is 5 to review its training materials and produce (or re-produce as appropriate) a complete 6 copy of all written training materials provided to Ms. Warny from 2011 to 2013. 7 RFPs 36 8 RFP 36 seeks the applications of prospective tenants that were denied but saved by 9 Ms. Warny, which Ms. Warny testified she maintained in her possession. ECF no. 86-3, 10 Ex 2, pg. 18:23-19:4. As an employee of TPPM, these documents are within the 11 “possession, custody, and control” of TPPM. 12 TPPM’s objections in response to the request echo those previously raised: 13 relevance, over-breadth, unduly burdensome/harassing, violation of 14 privacy/confidentiality. ECF No. 86, pg. 82:3-9. TPPM further argues that production 15 on the scope of the request without restriction as to time or familial status would violate 16 privacy rights, is over-broad, harassing and irrelevant. 17 The Court finds that the relevance objection is without merit, the applications of 18 tenants rejected on the basis of violation of the occupancy status at the Dominguez Way 19 apartments are directly relevant to the action. However, the scope of time must be 20 limited to the time alleged in the operative complaint, the occupancy standard is the 21 relevant metric, and redactions are appropriate. 22 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP 36 is GRANTED IN PART. 23 TPPM is to review and redact as appropriate, and produce any applications for the 24 Dominguez Way apartment that were denied from 2011 to 2013 for any applicant(s) 25 whose application appeared to violate the then-existing occupancy standard(s), regardless 26 of the ultimate reason for the denial (e.g. credit score). Redactions may omit financial 27 information; telephone number; or other personal identifying information as appropriate 28 and required (e.g., social security number); names and last known/listed addresses must 13 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 be provided. See, ECF No. 56, pg. 8-10 (Order on Joint Discovery Dispute No. 1, 2 addressing Third Party Privacy). 3 RFP 37 4 RFPs 37 requests Ms. Warny’s daily log. TPPM re-asserts the same objections as 5 raised previously. ECF No. 86, pg. 82: 24-28. As the on-site manager for the 6 Dominguez Way property, Ms. Warny’s log is relevant and must be produced. 7 Defendant represents that all documents related to Ms. Joa and Ms. Blanton have been 8 produced. This argument misses the mark. Documents or references showing the 9 application and enforcement of the occupancy standard at the subject property are 10 relevant, regardless of whether Ms. Blanton (or Ms. Joa) was referenced by name. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP 37 is GRANTED. To the 11 12 extent it exists, Ms. Warny’s daily log for the Dominguez Way apartments must be 13 produced for the years 2011 to 2013.3 14 RFPs 39-40 15 RFPs 39 and 40 seek any information or documentation used, referenced, or 16 considered by Mr. Crandall to develop the “1 plus 1” occupancy standard. 17 TPPM objects that the requests violates the attorney work-product and 18 attorney/client privilege; seek irrelevant information pertaining to a DEFH case; are 19 argumentative; misstate/misrepresent a document; are vague and ambiguous; over-broad; 20 and do not describe the items with appropriate particularity. ECF No. 86, pg. 83:23- 21 84:5, 84:19-85:3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFPs 39 and 40 are GRANTED. 22 23 The Court finds these request properly seek information related to the occupancy 24 standard, and that Plaintiff has demonstrated the relevance of the prior DEFH case such 25 that any objection based solely upon that ground is overruled. To the extent any 26 27 28 3 The Court notes that Ms. Warny testified that she kept the log for, approximately, the last 3 years. 14 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 documents exist that are protected by the work product or attorney client privileges, they 2 must be identified on a privilege log. Any other relevant documents related to the 3 development of “1 plus 1” occupancy standard must be produced. 4 RFPs 41-42 5 RFPs 41 and 42 seek additional documents referenced or alluded to by Ms. Warny 6 in her deposition including instructions for the on-site manager and Fair Housing 7 flyers/handouts. ECF No. 86-3, Ex 2. TPPM raises the same objections, adding for RFP 8 41 that the information seeks commercially sensitive information. 9 As with RFP 35, the policies of TPPM and directions for enforcement as provided 10 to on-site managers is relevant to the action. To the extent that instructions provided to 11 the on-site managers seek commercially sensitive information, such documents may be 12 produced pursuant to the provisions of the operative protective order. ECF No. 37. As 13 with other requests, the scope is properly limited to the time relevant to Ms. Blanton’ 14 claims (2011-2013) and documents applicable to/provided to the on-site manager at the 15 Dominguez Way apartments. 16 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFPs 41 and 42 are GRANTED. 17 TPPM is produce any instructions provided to the on-site manager for the Dominguez 18 Way and any handouts regarding Fair Housing in its possession, custody, and control. 19 VI. 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Conclusion 21 the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-36, and 22 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel further 23 responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), Nos. 29-42. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 25 1. Defendant TPPM is provide answers to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-2, 4-7, 26 27 28 10, 12, 15-16, and 17-25 consistent with this Order and Rule 36(a)(4); 2. Defendant TPPM is produce/re-produce documents consistent with this Order for Requests for Production Nos. 29 and 35; 15 15-CV-0892 W (NLS) 1 2 3 4 3. Defendant TPPM is to provide amended responses and produce documents consistent with this Order for Requests for Production Nos. 36-37 and 39-42. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 24, 2017 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 15-CV-0892 W (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?