RKF Retail Holdings, LLC v. Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.

Filing 142

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 101 Motion to Compel.; granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion for Protective Order.; Discovery is reopened through 9/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

RKF RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TROPICANA LAS VEGAS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
RKF RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EASTERN REAL ESTATE LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01232-APG-GWF
Case No. 2:15-cv-01446-APG-GWF

ORDER
Re: Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101)

18
19

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101) filed on May 1,

20

2017. Defendant Eastern filed its Opposition (ECF No. 106) on May 4, 2017. Plaintiff filed its Reply

21

(ECF No. 120) to Eastern’s Opposition on May 22, 2017. Defendant Tropicana filed its Opposition

22

(ECF No. 113) and Countermotion for Protective Order (ECF No. 114) on May 15, 2017. Plaintiff filed

23

its Reply (ECF No. 122) and Opposition (ECF No. 123) to Tropicana’s opposition/countermotion on

24

May 26, 2017. Defendant Tropicana filed its Reply (ECF No. 129) on June 2, 2017. The Court

25

conducted a hearing in this matter on June 8, 2017.

26
27
28

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff RKF Retail Holdings, LLC (“RKF”) and Defendant Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc.
(“Tropicana”) entered into an Exclusive Agency Agreement (“Agreement”) on August 29, 2012 relating

1

to a planned retail shopping center to be constructed on the grounds of Tropicana’s hotel/casino

2

property in Las Vegas, Nevada. Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101), Exhibit 1, Agreement. Pursuant to

3

the Agreement, Tropicana granted RKF the exclusive right as broker to lease space to prospective

4

tenants in the shopping center “Premises” which was in the design development stage. Id. at ¶ 1. RKF

5

was to use its best efforts to market the shopping center to prospective tenants consistent with a first

6

class retail shopping mall. Id. at ¶ 2. The initial term of the agreement was one year, commencing on

7

September 15, 2012. Id. at ¶ 1. The Agreement provided that RKF would be paid commissions on

8

tenant leases as follows: 50% upon execution of a lease or the first construction draw whichever

9

occurred later, and 50% upon the tenant opening for business at the shopping center premises. Id. at ¶ 6.

10

If no lease was executed, then no commission would be deemed earned by RKF, and it would not be

11

entitled to any payment from the Owner other than for preparing marketing materials. Id. at ¶ 7.

12

The Agreement provided four methods by which it could be terminated. First, the Agreement

13

could be terminated after one year by either party on thirty days written notice. Id. at ¶ 1. Second, it

14

could be immediately terminated if the Owner decided to cease its efforts in designing and developing

15

the shopping center project. The Agreement would be automatically re-instated for a six (6) month

16

period, however, if the Owner elected to start the project again within six (6) months after ceasing its

17

efforts. Id. Third, the Owner could terminate the agreement if it entered into any sale, merger,

18

acquisition, assignment or other disposition involving the Owner or the Premises. Upon termination for

19

this reason, neither the Owner or its successor would have any further liability to RKF except to the

20

extent that (i) commissions had been earned but not yet paid and (ii) the prospective tenant list pursuant

21

to Section 18 was assumed by the successor in writing. If the prospective tenant list was not assumed by

22

the successor, then the Owner would remain responsible for payment of commissions to RKF in

23

accordance with Section 18. Id. at ¶ 8. Fourth, the Agreement could be terminated upon a default by

24

RKF that was not cured within thirty 30 days following notice by the Owner. In the event of termination

25

for default, RKF would not be entitled to any commissions, except to the extent that any commissions

26

had been earned prior to termination in connection with any lease that has been fully executed and

27

delivered by the parties. Id. at ¶ 11.

28

...
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Paragraph 18 of the Agreement stated as follows:
Prospective Tenant List. Within fifteen (15) days after the expiration or
effective date of termination of this Agreement, RKF shall submit to
Owner a Prospective Tenant List (hereinafter the “List”), which shall be
limited to prospective tenants that have either (i) visited the property
where the Premises will be located with intent to lease space therein and
expressed interest in writing (email included) in leasing space therein, or
(ii) submitted or received a bona fide offer, bona fide letter of intent or
bona fide written lease proposal during the term hereof. If, within six (6)
months after the expiration or effective date of termination of this
Agreement, Owner enters into a transaction with any Tenant included on
the List, Owner agrees to pay RKF the Commission as outlined herein
(plus any Option Commissions or Expansion Commissions if applicable),
in accordance with the terms hereof.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if at the end of such six (6) month period,
Owner and a Tenant on the List are negotiating in good faith, then such six
(6) month period shall be extended to the earlier of (a) the date on which
the transaction is executed and (b) the date on which such good faith
negotiations end without the transaction having been executed. This
paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement,
including as it may relate to any Transfer. In the event the Owner enters
into a Transfer Agreement, Owner shall use commercially reasonable
efforts to enter into an Assumption Agreement, a copy of which shall be
sent to RKF within five (5) days of the effective date of the Transfer. Any
Transfer shall not release Owner of the obligation under this paragraph
unless the Transferee enters into an Assumption Agreement.

15
16

Agreement, (ECF No. 101), Exhibit 1, ¶ 18.

17

On March 26, 2014, Tropicana sent a letter to RKF terminating the Agreement, effective

18

immediately. Tropicana’s Opposition (ECF No. 113), Exhibit A. Tropicana stated that it was

19

terminating the Agreement, under Section 1. It also stated that it was terminating the Agreement under

20

Section 11 due to the numerous defaults by RKF, some of which it identified in the letter. Tropicana

21

stated that it was making the termination effective immediately to avoid exposing it to further harm and

22

additional damages resulting from RKF’s numerous defaults. Id. On April 8, 2014, RKF sent a letter to

23

Tropicana reiterating its position that Tropicana had improperly and unlawfully terminated the

24

Agreement. With its letter, RKF provided “a list of prospective tenants for the Premises that are the

25

subject of the agency agreement.” Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101), Exhibit 2.

26

RKF filed its complaint against Tropicana on July 28, 2014. RKF alleged that it performed

27

substantial work to market the project and obtain letters of intent from prospective tenants, and

28

performed other services outside the scope of the Agreement to assist Tropicana in developing the
3

1

project. It alleged that Tropicana “had no intention of immediate development of the Premises, but

2

rather procured RKF’s services in marketing and cultivating interest in its potential development by

3

means of fraudulent misrepresentations of fact.” RKF alleges causes of action against Tropicana for

4

fraudulent inducement,1 fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, contractual and tortious breach of

5

the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. Tropicana filed a

6

counterclaim on September 4, 2014, alleging that RKF misrepresented its ability to secure tenants for the

7

proposed shopping center, and that had it known the true extent of RKF’s experience and contacts, it

8

would not have hired it. Tropicana alleges claims against RKF for fraudulent inducement, breach of

9

contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent

10
11

interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligence.
On July 29, 2015, RKF filed a separate lawsuit against Eastern Real Estate, LLC, (“Eastern”)

12

which alleged that Eastern induced and conspired with Tropicana to terminate RKF’s exclusive agency

13

contract so that Tropicana and Eastern could then proceed with the development. RKF alleges claims

14

against Eastern for tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective business relations, and

15

aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.2

16

The Tropicana was acquired by Penn National Gaming, Inc. on August 25, 2015. On September

17

16, 2015, Tropicana sent a letter to RKF stating: “Based on our telephone discussions last month, I know

18

you are aware that Penn National Gaming, Inc. (“Penn”) agreed to buy the Tropicana. That transaction

19

has now closed, and Penn is now the owner of the Tropicana.” Tropicana’s Opposition (ECF No. 113),

20

Exhibit D. Tropicana quoted paragraph 8 of the Agreement regarding termination upon a transfer or sell

21

of the Owner or the Premises and asserted that provision as an additional ground for terminating the

22

Agreement. Tropicana, however, stood by its earlier termination of the Agreement on March 26, 2014.

23
24

RKF claims that but for Tropicana’s and Eastern’s wrongful conduct, it would have earned six
million dollars ($6,000,000.00) in commissions once the shopping center was completed and tenants

25
26
27
28

1

RKF states in its opposition to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment that it is dropping the
fraudulent inducement claim.
2

These actions were consolidated on May 10, 2016.

4

1

began operating their businesses. Tropicana has asserted throughout this litigation that it ceased

2

development of the shopping center, and RKF therefore cannot prove any alleged loss of commissions.

3

The evidence shows that on July 7, 2014, Eastern notified Tropicana that it had decided to withdraw

4

from the project. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 137), Exhibit 84. Brian Kelly

5

of Eastern testified , however, that Onex (Tropicana’s parent) “asked us to come back to the project and

6

we came back to the project and started again, but we never completed any sort of venture.”

7

Tropicana’s Opposition to Motion to Compel (ECF No. 113), Exhibit E, Kelly deposition, pg. 125. Mr.

8

Kelly stated that Eastern finally withdrew from the project in June 2015. Raymond Murphy of Eastern

9

testified that Eastern’s involvement in the project ended when the Tropicana was sold to Penn Gaming

10

which may have been in or about June 2015. Opposition (ECF No. 113), Exhibit F. He further testified

11

that Eastern “[was] working under a predevelopment agreement to see if there was a way to make this

12

project viable, financially/physically, and then we were notified that Penn Gaming was buying

13

Tropicana, the project was no longer there for us to work on.” Id. at Murphy deposition, pgs. 47-48.

14

Jim Reuter, an employee of Atlantic Retail which worked as the leasing agent for Eastern on the

15

project, testified that “the deal had been on and off a couple of times, so I think there was a feeling that

16

there was a possibility that the deal may be resurrected.” Opposition (ECF No. 113), Exhibit G, Reuter

17

deposition, pg. 226. He could not recall the exact date that Atlantic completely stopped working on the

18

project, but believed it was prior to November 1, 2015. Id. at pgs 226-27. He further stated “I don’t

19

know if it was June or July of 2015.” Id. at pg. 227. Mr. Reuter was not aware at the time of his April 4,

20

2017 deposition of any ongoing plans to develop a shopping center on the property. Id. at pg. 208.

21

Bryan Anderson of Atlantic testified that Atlantic’s involvement ended “[w]henever Eastern’s

22

involvement ended.” Opposition (ECF No. 113), Exhibit H, Anderson deposition, pg. 46. He stated that

23

Atlantic stopped working on the project when it was announced that Penn Gaming had purchased the

24

property. Id. at pg. 147. He testified that Eastern reached out to Penn National Gaming to see if it could

25

continue as a joint venture partner with it on the project. Id. at pg.154. Mr. Anderson was also unaware,

26

at the time of his April 5, 2017 deposition whether there are current plans to develop a shopping center

27

on the property. Id. at pgs 77-78.

28

Tropicana’s general counsel Joanne Beckett testified that she did not know “if Penn Gaming in
5

1

connection with its acquisition of Tropicana ever contemplated pursuing the development.” Opposition

2

(ECF No. 113), Exhibit I, Beckett deposition, pg. 136. She was not privy to any conversations that

3

Tropicana’s former president, Alex Yemenidjian, may have had with Penn Gaming regarding the

4

continued pursuit of the shopping center project after the acquisition. She did not hear of any such

5

plans. Id. at pgs 306-07.

6

RKF states that on March 31, 2017, it learned of the existence of “Penn Gaming/Tropicana

7

documents showing that they fully intended to develop the Premises and had simply hid the continuing

8

development plans from discovery.” Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101), at pg. 2. RKF states that it

9

received an email from a Las Vegas broker inquiring about RKF’s interest in providing prospective

10

tenants for a shopping center development on the Tropicana property. The broker attached a “‘Master

11

Plan and renderings for the Tropicana retail expansion’ reflecting ongoing efforts to develop the

12

Premises as a retail shopping center.” Id. at pg. 7. See Declaration of RKF’s Counsel, Ross Bagley

13

(ECF no. 103), Exhibit D. The drawings or renderings prepared by Marnell Architecture are dated

14

November 2016. Id. In light of this information, RKF moves to compel Tropicana to supplement its

15

previous responses to requests for production of documents. Specifically, RKF argues that Tropicana

16

should be ordered to supplement its responses to the following requests for production in RKF’s first set

17

of requests:

18

Request No. 2: All documents concerning the Premises, including but not
limited to development of the Premises;3

19
Request NO. 7: All documents concerning representations made by
Tropicana concerning the development of the Premises, including but not
limited to documents concerning the timeline for development, the
intention to develop and efforts toward development;

20
21
22

Request No. 9: All documents concerning Tropicana’s conduct in
connection with development of the Premises; and

23
Request No. 16: All documents concerning prospective or potential
tenants of the Premises.

24
25
26
27

3

RKF’s motion refers to this request as Request No. 1. However, the quoted request is Request No. 2.
see Declaration (ECF no. 103), Exhibit A.

28
6

1
2
3
4
5
6

Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101), pg. 6; Declaration of RKF’s Counsel, Ross Bagley (ECF No.
103), Exhibit D.
Discovery closed on April 10, 2017. Without first moving to extend discovery, RKF served the
following additional requests for production on Tropicana on April 4, 2017:
1. All documents concerning the Premises, including but not limited to
any architectural and/or written plans and renderings prepared by or with
Marnell Architecture or any other architecture firm concerning the
development of the Premises. . . .

7
8
9

2. All documents concerning the potential development of the Premises
for use other than that of retail space, including but not limited to the use
of the Premises as; (1) a single tenant restaurant space, (ii) exhibit space;
(iii) convention space; and (iv) multi-tenant food and beverage space. . . .

10
11

3. All documents concerning teleconferences or meetings with Marnell
Architecture, The McGarey Group, or any other architects and/or brokers
concerning the Premises involving Tropicana and/or Penn Gaming. . . .

12
13
14
15
16

4. All documents concerning Tropicana’s and/or Penn Gaming’s conduct
in connection with the development of the Premises, including but not
limited to (i) efforts to obtain financing or (ii) contact with real estate
brokers, developers, potential tenants, agents or other third parties. . . .
5. All documents concerning teleconferences, meetings, or
communications between Tropicana, Penn Gaming or any other third party
concerning any decision to develop – or not develop – the Premises in
2017 or thereafter.

17
18

6. All documents concerning the announcement of any initial or updated
development plans for a retail development project involving the
Premises. . . .

19
Declaration of RKF’s Counsel, Ross Bagley (ECF no. 103), Exhibit E.
20
RKF states that documents responsive to Request Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 should have been
21
produced in supplemental responses to it prior requests. Id.
22
On April 4, 2017, RKF’s lawyer also sent a letter to Tropicana’s lawyer advising that “RKF has
23
just become aware . . . that continuing plans for the continued development o the Premises are ongoing
24
and that Tropicana possesses responsive documents concerning the continued development of the
25
Premises that have not yet been produced.” RKF asserted that Tropicana had a duty to produce such
26
documents as a supplement to its responses to prior requests. Declaration of RKF’s Counsel, Ross
27
Bagley (ECF no. 103), Exhibit F. On April 7 and 20, 2017, RKF also served a subpoena duces tecum
28
7

1

and an amended subpoena duces tecum on Penn National Gaming, Inc. seeking the same documents set

2

forth in the requests for production to Tropicana. Declaration of RKF’s Counsel, Ross Bagley (ECF no.

3

103), Exhibit I. The subpoena also seeks:

4

5. All documents concerning the activities of Penn Gaming’s Board of
Directors (“Board”) in connection with the development of the Premises,
including but not limited to communications between members of the
Board; communications between any members of the Board and any other
third party; plans, presentations, surveys, reports, financials or other
material submitted to the Board; votes of the Board; minutes of meetings
of the Board; or resolutions or actions taken by the Board.

5
6
7
8

Id.

9

RKF also moves to reopen discovery to obtain additional information about Penn Gaming’s

10
11

shopping center development plans.
Tropicana argues that Penn Gaming’s current development plans for the property are new and

12

independent of the shopping center project that was pursued by Tropicana prior to Penn Gaming’s

13

acquisition of the property. It argues that Penn Gaming’s current plans provide for a significantly

14

smaller retail shopping area as a component of an overall plan to remodel the main entrance and casino

15

area. It argues that these plans are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action and need not be

16

produced. Tropicana further argues that RKF’s sixth set of request for production are improper and

17

untimely because they were served less than one week before the discovery cut-off date. It also argues

18

that the subpoena served on Penn Gaming is untimely because it was served after discovery closed.

19

Tropicana also argues that RKF unreasonably waited until May 1, 2017 to file its motion to compel and

20

to reopen discovery.

21

DISCUSSION

22

1.

23

Defendants argue that RKF’s motion to compel and to reopen discovery should be denied on

Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and to Reopen Discovery.

24

grounds of untimeliness. In Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D.Nev. 1999), the court

25

noted that “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this district do not specify a time

26

limit for filing a motion to compel.” Eighteen years after Gault, that statement is still true. Gault stated

27

that a motion to compel may be filed after the close of discovery, and that absent unusual circumstances,

28

it should be filed before the scheduled date for dispositive motions. The statements in Gault are only
8

1

general guideposts, not bright-line rules. Williams v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 2015 WL

2

3489553, at *1 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015). The timeliness of a motion to compel must be determined based

3

on the circumstances specific to that case. Id. A motion to compel filed on the last day of discovery, for

4

example, may be untimely if it could and should have been filed much earlier. E.E.O.C. v. Pioneer

5

Hotel, Inc., 2014 WL 5045109, at *1-2 (D.Nev. Oct. 9, 2014). This Court and others have looked to the

6

non-exhaustive list of factors set forth in Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Investments, 237 F.R.D.

7

395, 398 (S.D. Tex. 2006), in analyzing the timeliness of a motion to compel. The factors include: (1)

8

the length of time since the expiration of the deadline; (2) the length of time the moving party has known

9

about the discovery; (3) whether the discovery deadline has been previously extended; (4) the

10

explanation for the tardiness or delay; (5) the age of the case; (6) prejudice to the party from whom

11

discovery is sought; and (7) disruption of the court’s schedule.

12

RKF states that it first learned of Penn Gaming’s current development plans at the end of March

13

2017. Upon learning about Penn Gaming’s development plans, RKF promptly notified Tropicana of its

14

duty to supplement its prior discovery responses and also served its sixth set of request for production of

15

documents. Although RKF arguably should have moved to extend the April 10th discovery deadline

16

before it expired, and should have obtained such an extension before it served its sixth set of requests for

17

production,4 RKF did not engage in unnecessary delay under the circumstances. The fact that RKF’s

18

motion was filed 20 days after the discovery deadline expired was also not unreasonable given that RKF

19

learned of Penn Gaming’s development plans less than two weeks before the expiration of discovery.5

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Written discovery requests are untimely if they are not served at least 30 days before the discovery cut
off date. Collins v. Landry’s Inc., 2015 WL 3505315, at *2 (D.Nev. June 3, 2015) (citing Bishop v. Potter, 2010
WL 2775332, at *1 (D.Nev. July 14, 2010)). Thus, absent an order extending the discovery period or shortening
the time for response, Tropicana was not required to respond to RKF’s sixth set of requests for production.
5

Based on the present record, the Court rejects RKF’s assertion that Tropicana and Penn Gaming
intentionally concealed Penn Gaming’s development plans in an attempt to prevent RKF from obtaining
admissible evidence. First, as discussed hereafter, there is a reasonable argument that Penn Gaming’s current
development plans are substantially different from the prior shopping center project, and therefore irrelevant to
the claims and defenses in this case. Second, neither RKF or the Court knows when Penn Gaming began its plans
to further develop the Tropicana property. Third, Penn Gaming has made its development plans public to those
who may be interested in leasing or providing prospective tenants for the development— which is how RKF
learned of the plans.

9

1

Tardiness or delay, therefore, is not valid ground upon which to deny RKF’s motion to compel or to

2

reopen discovery.

3

2.

4

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2015, provides that

5

“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim

6

or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in

7

the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’

8

resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden and

9

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of

10
11

Relevance and Proportionality.

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
The intent of the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) was to encourage trial courts to exercise their

12

broad discretion to limit and tailor discovery to avoid abuse and overuse, and to actively manage

13

discovery to accomplish the goal of Rule 1 “‘to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of

14

every action and proceeding.’” Roberts v. Clark County School District, 312 F.R.D. 594, 601–04 (D.

15

Nev. 2016). The court, quoting Chief Justice Roberts’ 2015 Year-End Report, states:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) emphasize the need to impose
“reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the
common-sense concept of proportionality.” The fundamental principle of
amended Rule 26(b)(1) is “that lawyers must size and shape their
discovery requests to the requisites of a case.” The pretrial process must
provide parties with efficient access to what is needed to prove a claim or
defense, but eliminate unnecessary and wasteful discovery. This requires
active involvement of federal judges to make decisions regarding the
scope of discovery.
Roberts, 312 F.R.D. at 603. See also Nationstar Mortgage v. Flamingo Trails No. 7, 316 F.R.D.
327, 331 (D.Nev. 2016).

23

In In re Bard IVC Filters Products, 317 F.R.D. 562, 563 (D.Ariz. 2016), the court noted that

24

prior to the 2015 amendments, Rule 26(b) provided that inadmissible evidence was discoverable if it

25

“appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and that some courts,

26

and many lawyers, used this language to define the scope of discovery. The 2015 amendments

27

eliminated the “reasonably calculated” language and replaced it with the more direct declaration that

28

“[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Id. at 563 (quoting rule). Bard states:
Relevancy alone is no longer sufficient—discovery must also be
proportional to the needs of the case. The Advisory Committee Note
makes clear, however, that the amendment does not place the burden of
proving proportionality on the party seeking discovery. The amendment
“does not change the existing responsibilities of the court and the parties
to consider proportionality, and the change does not place on the party
seeking discovery the burden of addressing all proportionality
considerations.” Rule 26, Advis. Comm. Notes for 2015 Amends. Rather,
“[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the
proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery
disputes.”

8

Bard, 317 F.R.D. at 564.

9

Generally, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that it is irrelevant, overly

10

broad, or unduly burdensome. Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-4 (S.D.Ind.

11

2000); Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2016 WL 54202, at *4 (D.Nev. Jan. 5, 2016); Izzo v. Wal-Mart

12

Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 593532, at *2 (D.Nev. Feb. 11, 2016). When a request is overly broad on its face

13

or when relevancy is not readily apparent, however, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show

14

the relevancy of the request. Desert Valley Painting & Drywall, Inv. v. United States, 2012 WL

15

4792913, at *2 (D.Nev. Oct. 9, 2012) (citing Marook v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 259 F.R.D. 388,

16

394-95 (N.D. Iowa 2009)). The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) have not changed these basic rules,

17

although they must now be applied with a greater degree of analysis and emphasis on proportionality.

18

RKF alleges that Tropicana and Eastern acted in a fraudulent and wrongful manner to remove

19

RKF as the leasing agent and prevent it from receiving the commissions to which it would be entitled.

20

Tropicana argues, however, that the shopping center was never constructed and, therefore, there are no

21

leases upon which RKF could have earned commissions. Although RKF argues that it is entitled to

22

recover the projected commissions even if the shopping center is not developed, its damages claim is

23

certainly undermined if the shopping center project was not economically viable.

24

Based on the evidence so far submitted, Penn Gaming’s current development plans appear to be

25

substantially different from the shopping center project previously pursued by Tropicana and RKF, and

26

then by Tropicana and Eastern. Nonetheless, RKF seeks production of all documents relating to any

27

development of the Tropicana property. See e.g., Declaration of RKF’s Counsel, Ross Bagley (ECF No.

28

103), Exhibit E, Request No. 2. These requests are overbroad on their face. A project to build or expand
11

1

the Tropicana’s exhibit or convention space or to build a single tenant restaurant, does not appear

2

sufficiently similar to the shopping center project to justify production of all documents relating to such

3

developments. RKF is entitled to conduct limited discovery to obtain documents or information, beyond

4

that contained in Exhibit D to its Motion, which describe the nature of Penn Gaming’s current

5

development plans for the subject property and when Penn Gaming began pursuing the current

6

development project. Such discovery may include conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Penn

7

Gaming on these limited topics. If upon completion of this limited discovery, RKF can demonstrate that

8

there is substantial similarity between Penn Gaming’s current development plans and the previous

9

shopping center project, then the Court will consider RKF’s requests for production of additional

10

documents. If Penn Gaming’s current development plans are, in fact, substantially different from the

11

prior retail shopping center project, then further discovery on this matter will not be authorized.

12

Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding the documents or information to be

13

produced by Defendant Tropicana and/or non-party Penn National Gaming in compliance with the

14

Court’s order and to schedule a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition if requested by RKF. If they are unable to

15

agree on the documents or information to be produced in compliance with this order, they should so

16

advise the Court in writing and it will schedule a hearing to resolve the dispute(s). Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff RKF’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 101) and

18

Defendant Tropicana’s Countermotion for Protective Order (ECF No. 114) are granted, in part, and

19

denied, in part, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this order.

20
21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is reopened through September 6, 2017 to
complete the limited discovery authorized by this order.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2017.

23
24
25

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
12