Sheets et al v. Sorrento Villas, Section 5, Association, Inc. et al

Filing 152

ORDER granting 136 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from the Sorrento Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/7/2016. (LBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KIRSTEN SHEETS, JASON KALAGHER
and JANSON MURPHY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:15-cv-1674-T-30JSS

SORRENTO VILLAS, SECTION 5,
ASSOCIATION, INC., ARGUS
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
JAMES TOMPKINS, BOB BRUNO,
NANCY HUBBARD, CLAUDIA
DORNBACK, HARLAN BUD FRIDDLE,
JACK MCCOPPEN and LOYOLA SIEP,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery from the
Sorrento Defendants (“Motion”) (Dkt. 136), and the response in opposition filed by Defendants
James Tompkins, Bob Bruno, Nancy Hubbard, Claudia Dornback, Harlan (Bud) Friddle, Jack
McCoppen, and Loyola Siep (collectively, “Sorrento Defendants”) (Dkt. 140). For the reasons
that follow, the Motion is granted.
In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel the Sorrento Defendants to produce documents in
response to Plaintiffs’ request for production that seeks financial records and information relevant
to Plaintiffs’ claim for an award of punitive damages. (Dkt. 136.) Plaintiffs served the discovery
requests on the Sorrento Defendants in late June 2016 (Dkt. 136-1), and the requests that are the
subject of the Motion are request numbers 1, 10, 12, 14, 29, and 31 (“Requests”). (Dkt. 136 ¶ 8.)
After being served with the Requests, the Sorrento Defendants moved for a protective
order, contending that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the Sorrento Defendants’ personal financial

information because Plaintiffs did not allege that the Sorrento Defendants committed FHA
violations “in their personal, individual capacity.” (Dkt. 80 ¶ 6.) The Sorrento Defendants served
responses to the Requests, objecting to them on the basis that they request irrelevant information
“outside the scope of discoverable information,” as set forth in the Sorrento Defendants’ motion
for protective order (“Initial Responses”). (Dkt. 136-2.)
In late July 2016, the Court entered an order on the Sorrento Defendants’ motion for
protective order, determining that the Requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of the
case because they are important to the measure and resolution of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages
claims. (Dkt. 89 at 8.) Therefore, the Court denied the Sorrento Defendants’ motion for protective
order as to the Requests, but limited the time period for “this permitted financial, net-worth
discovery” to the years 2015 to the present. (Dkt. 89 at 9.)
After entry of the Court’s order, in late September 2016, the Sorrento Defendants served
supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ request for production, stating that the documents sought,
such as tax returns, were jointly filed with the Sorrento Defendants’ spouses and, thus, they had
no responsive documents as to themselves, individually (“Supplemental Responses”). (Dkt. 1363.) In response to the Motion, the Sorrento Defendants contend that their spouses’ financial
information, contained in joint financial information, is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that the
Sorrento Defendants are individually and personally responsible for alleged FHA violations. (Dkt.
140 ¶ 5(b)). Further, as to Plaintiffs’ argument that the Sorrento Defendants waived the ability to
object to the Requests on the basis of their requesting joint financial information, the Sorrento
Defendants argue that the Supplemental Responses are not objections, but instead are responses
stating that “that no individual financial documentation responsive to their Request was available,

-2-

as Plaintiff failed to seek jointly held financial information in its discovery requests.” (Dkt. 140
at 5.)
In response to a request for production, a party “must respond in writing within 30 days
after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). “A party who fails to assert objections to
discovery within the time permitted by the rule, stipulation or court order, waives any objections
and is precluded ‘from asserting the objection in a response to a motion to compel.’” Siddiq v.
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., No. 6:11-CV-69-ORL-19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 7, 2011) (citing Middle District Discovery Handbook § III.A.6, which provides that “[a]bsent
compelling circumstances, failure to assert an objection to a request for production within the time
allowed for responding constitutes a waiver and will preclude a party from asserting the objection
in response to a motion to compel”).
In circumstances where production requests seek information of a party’s spouse or the
joint owner of property with a party, courts have held that this information is irrelevant to claims
for punitive damages against the party, but “[t]o the extent any of the documents contain
information for both [the party] and his spouse,” courts order that “the spouse’s information should
be redacted from the document.” Alexander v. Allen, No. 2:13-CV-885-FTM-29CM, 2014 WL
3887490, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2014); In re Fiddler’s Creek, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-379-FTM29CM, 2016 WL 3906927, at *12 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2016); Westbrook v. Charlie Sciara & Son
Produce Co., No. 07-2657 MA/P, 2008 WL 839745, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 27, 2008) (“The court
also notes that the fact that [defendant’s] financial accounts may be jointly owned with his wife or
that his tax returns may be filed jointly with his wife is not a barrier to discovery. [Defendant],
however, may redact any portions of the tax returns and financial information that pertain solely
to his wife prior to producing these documents to [plaintiff].”).

-3-

Here, Plaintiffs served the Requests on the Sorrento Defendants on June 10, 2016 (Dkt.
136-1), and the Sorrento Defendants’ timely served their Initial Responses, objecting to the
Requests as irrelevant, on July 8, 2016 (Dkt. 136-2). In the Initial Responses, the Sorrento
Defendants did not object to the Requests on the basis that they sought information regarding their
spouses’ or co-owners’ financial information (Dkt. 136-2), and this basis for objection was not
raised until late September 2016 in the Supplemental Responses (Dkt. 136-3). Accordingly, the
Court agrees with Plaintiffs that such objection was waived by the Sorrento Defendants. However,
the financial information of the Sorrento Defendants’ spouses and/or co-owners is not relevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages against the Sorrento Defendants because it is not
information about the Sorrento Defendants’ net worth. E.g. Alexander, 2014 WL 3887490, at *3.
Thus, the Court finds that the Sorrento Defendants must produce documents responsive to the
Requests, but may redact financial information contained in the documents that pertain to the
Sorrento Defendants’ spouses or joint owners of property. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion (Dkt. 136) is GRANTED. The responsive documents must
be provided within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 7, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-4-