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)

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)