Gao v. Snyder et al
Filing
45
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff Gao's Motion to Compel Production of Documents 38 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are directed to produce the additional documents required by this Opinion by 9/2/2011. (Copy of Opinion sent this date via U.S. Mail to Plaintiff Gao at his listed address.) (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 17 August, 2011 03:50:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JINRUN GAO,
Plaintiff,
v.
SNYDER COMPANIES and
BRICKYARD APARTMENTS
BY SNYDER, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-1025
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Jinrun Gao’s
Motion to Compel Production of Documents (d/e 38) (Motion). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in
part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jinrun Gao alleges that he and his wife Shengju Rong
rented an apartment in Bloomington, Illinois, from Defendant Brickyard
Apartments by Snyder, LLC (LLC), from January 25, 2007, to February 29,
2008. Amended Complaint (d/e 19), ¶¶ 6. Gao alleges that he and his
wife Rong are of American Chinese and Chinese origin. Id. Gao alleges
that Defendant Snyder Companies owns LLC (collectively Snyder). Id.
Page 1 of 10
¶ 5. Gao alleges that in January 2008, cigarette smoke started seeping
into his apartment. His wife, Rong, developed asthma because of the
smoke. Gao alleges that Rong became handicapped, as that term is used
in the Fair Housing Act (Act), as a result of her asthma. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9, 13(c);
42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). Gao alleges that he and his wife complained and
were discriminated against in violation of the Act because of their Chinese
ethnicity and also retaliated against because of their assertion of their
rights under the Act. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 10-15; 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604,
3617. Gao also alleges that Snyder refused to accommodate his wife’s
asthma in violation of the Act. Amended Complaint, ¶ 13; 42 U.S.C.
§ 3604(f). Gao alleges that the discrimination and retaliation was
intentional and willful. Amended Complaint, ¶ 15. Gao alleges that he is
seeking damages for himself and Rong. Rong did not sign any pleadings
and has not made an appearance as a party in the case.
On May 24, 2011, Gao served Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce to
Defendants. Motion, attached Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce to
Defendants (Request). Snyder responded with some documents and
some objections. The parties conferred to resolve the objections and
Snyder resubmitted its response to Gao. Motion, attached Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce to Defendants to ReSubmit Responses to this Set of Request for Production (Response).
Page 2 of 10
Snyder then provided another supplemental response. Defendants’ Filing
of Attachment to Defendants’ Response to Motion to Compel For
Production of Documents (d/e 42), attached Defendants’ Supplemental
Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request to Produce (Supplemental
Response). Gao still believes Snyder’s response is insufficient and has
brought this Motion.
DISCOVERY PRINCIPLES
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
claim or defense of any party. Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The rule gives the district
courts broad discretion in matters relating to discovery. See Brown-Bey v.
United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470-471 (7th Cir.1983); Eggleston v. Chicago
Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union 130, U. A., 657 F.2d 890, 902
(7th Cir.1981); see also, Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177, 183 (7th Cir.1985) (on review, courts of appeal will
only reverse a decision of a district court relating to discovery upon a clear
showing of an abuse of discretion). “[I]f there is an objection the discovery
goes beyond material relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses, the Court
would become involved to determine whether the discovery is relevant to
Page 3 of 10
the claims or defenses and, if not, whether good cause exists for
authorizing it so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action.
The good-cause standard warranting broader discovery is meant to be
flexible.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Advisory Committee Notes, 2000
Amendment.
The federal discovery rules are to be construed broadly and liberally.
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Jeffries v. LRP Publications,
Inc., 184 F.R.D. 262, 263 (E.D .Pa. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1) provides that the “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,”
but “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant
to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. The party opposing
discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery should be
disallowed. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D. Kan.
1999); Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc.,
132 F.R.D. 204, 207 (N.D. Ind. 1990); Flag Fables, Inc. v. Jean Ann’s
Country Flags and Crafts, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1165, 1186 (D. Mass. 1989).
District Courts have broad discretion in discovery matters. Packman
v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001). A party must be
diligent in pursuing the perceived inadequacies in discovery. Packman at
647. However, even an untimely filed motion to compel may still be
Page 4 of 10
allowed if the party demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice resulting
from the denial of discovery. Id. Remember, we are talking discovery, not
admissibility at trial.
ANALYSIS
Gao asks the Court to compel responses to document Requests
Numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12. The Court addresses each in order.
Request No. 2
Request No. 2 asks for, “Copy of phone call records regarding calls
to Defendants’ emergency line made by Shengju Rong in late January,
2008.” Snyder’s supplemental response provided records of calls on the
maintenance line for the months of January and February 2008.
Supplemental Response ¶ 2. Snyder states that the documents consist of
fax transmissions from the service that handles calls after hours for Snyder.
Snyder states that no other responsive documents exist. Id. Snyder has
provided the responsive documents. The Motion is denied with respect to
Request No. 2.
Request No. 3
Request No. 3 asks for, “All documents on circumstances and
responses of every tenant who called Defendants’ emergency line since
January 1, 2005.” Snyder responded with the same documents used to
respond to Request No. 2. The response is insufficient because the
Page 5 of 10
documents are limited to January and February 2008. Snyder is directed
to produce responsive documents that are in its possession that cover the
time period since January 1, 2005. Gao alleges discrimination in response
to maintenance calls. The documents, therefore, may lead to relevant
evidence. Limiting the discovery to documents after January 1, 2005, is a
reasonable time limitation to discover evidence regarding the treatment of
other tenants. Snyder also complains that the request is overly
burdensome. Snyder has the burden to prove its objection, but has
provided no evidence to show that the request is burdensome. The
objection is, therefore, overruled. The Motion is allowed with respect to
Request No. 3.
Request No. 4
Request No. 4 asks for “All documents on circumstances of every
case that Defendants denied tenant’s requests for regular maintenance
since January 1, 2005.” Snyder responded that no documents exist
because, “Snyder does not deny regular maintenance to any tenant who
makes a request for maintenance.” Supplemental Response, ¶ 4. The
Court cannot require the production of documents that do not exist. The
Motion is therefore denied with respect to Request No. 4. Should Gao find
evidence that Snyder possesses such documents, he may renew this
portion of the Motion.
Page 6 of 10
Request No. 5
Request No. 5 asks for, “All documents on circumstances and
solutions to each handicapped tenant since January 1, 2005.” Snyder
objects that the request is irrelevant. Snyder argues that Gao is the only
plaintiff and he is not handicapped. Snyder is correct on this point. Gao is
not admitted to practice law before this Court, and so, cannot represent his
wife. Rong must personally appear and become a party to this suit if she
wants to assert a claim for the alleged failure to accommodate her
handicap under the Act.
The request, however, may lead to relevant evidence on the issue of
intent to discriminate. Gao alleges that when Gao and Rong asked for an
accommodation of Rong’s handicap, Defendants’ representative refused
and said, “‘Why do you Chinese people have so many problems?’”
Amended Complaint, ¶ 10. This alleged quote may tend to indicate that
Snyder was hostile to people of Chinese ethnicity. Evidence of how
Defendants accommodated other handicapped tenants may be relevant to
prove Snyder’s hostility toward people of Chinese ethnicity. Such hostility
may be relevant to the issue of intent to discriminate. The treatment of
other handicapped tenants is thus discoverable.
The Defendants also argue that the request is overly burdensome
because the Defendants would have to review records manually. The
Page 7 of 10
Defendants, however, have not presented any evidence to show the extent
of review that would be required. The Defendants, thus, fail to show that
the discovery should not be allowed on this basis. The Motion is allowed
with respect to Request No. 5. The Defendants are directed to produce the
requested material.
Request No. 6
Request No. 6 asks for, “All documents on circumstances and
outcome for each tenant who argued with Defendants since January 1,
2005.” Gao has limited the phrase “outcome for each tenant who argued
with Defendants since January 1, 2005" to mean “whether they were
denied to renew lease, or bared [sic] access to clubhouse/office.” Motion,
at 2. Snyder argues that the request is irrelevant, overly burdensome and
unclear. The Court agrees that the term “argued with Defendants” is
unclear. The request means any argument between any tenant and any
Snyder employee about anything. That request is too broad and too vague
to require Snyder to interpret and respond. The Motion is denied with
respect to Request No. 6.
Request No. 8
Request No. 8 asks for, “Copies of documents that show Defendants
barred JoAnne Teal and Joseph from common facilities (clubhouse and
office), if Defendants did so.” Snyder responds that it produced its files
Page 8 of 10
concerning JoAnne Teal and Joseph Kennedy. Response, ¶ 8. Snyder
states that it has no other responsive documents. The Court cannot
require the production of documents that do not exist. The Motion is
therefore denied with respect to Request No. 8. Should Gao find evidence
that Snyder possesses such documents, he may renew this portion of the
Motion.
Request No. 9
Request No. 9 asks for, “Copies of all reports, emails, memorandum,
notes, records and other written documents between Brickyard Apartments
by Snyder, LLC, and its superior (The Snyder Companies) and between
staff of Brickyard Apartments by Snyder, LLC, and between Brickyard
Apartments by Snyder, LLC and outside persons/entities, regarding this
case.” Snyder states that it has produced all responsive documents.
Supplemental Response, ¶ 9.1 The Court, again, cannot require the
production of documents that do not exist. The Motion is therefore denied
with respect to Request No. 9. Should Gao find evidence that Snyder
possesses such documents, he may renew this portion of the Motion.
1
The Court interprets Snyder’s response to mean that it produced all responsive,
non-privileged documents. Snyder is not required to produce confidential
communications with its counsel regarding this case. Such documents are protected by
the attorney-client privilege.
Page 9 of 10
Request No. 12
Request No. 12 asks for, “Copies of all reports, memorandum, notes,
records, and other written documents related to the incidents on JoAnne
Teal and Joseph Kennedy in 2005.” Snyder responds that it produced its
files concerning JoAnne Teal and Joseph Kennedy. Response, ¶ 12.
Snyder states that it has no other documents. The Court cannot require
the production of documents that do not exist. The Motion is therefore
denied with respect to Request No. 12. Should Gao find evidence that
Snyder possesses such documents, he may renew this portion of the
Motion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gao’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents (d/e 38) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants
are directed to produce the additional documents required by this Opinion
by September 2, 2011.
ENTER: August 17, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 10 of 10
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?