Singh et al v. Hancock Natural Resources Group, Inc. et al, No. 1:2015cv01435 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART 47 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/28/2016. (Hall, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DHILLON SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 HANCOCK NATURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01435 LJO JLT ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 47) In this action, the plaintiff contends the Goose Pond breached a contract to sell 2,470 acres 17 18 of farmland that was, at the time, being used as an almond farm. (Doc. 29 at 4) 19 I. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Legal Standards Governing Discovery The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(b) states in relevant part: Unless otherwise limited by court order, parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged manner that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the accident. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact 27 that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it 28 would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 1 1 II. Production of electronic mail and other documents along with the associated metadata 2 in response to production requests 3 A. Legal Standards 4 A party may request documents “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Similarly, a party may serve a request “to permit entry onto designated 6 land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party 7 may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 34(a)(2). A request is adequate if it describes items with “reasonable particularity;” specifies a 9 reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection; and specifies the form or forms in which 10 electronic information can be produced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Thus, a request is sufficiently clear 11 if it “places the party upon ‘reasonable notice of what is called for and what is not.’” Kidwiler v. 12 Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 192. F.R.D. 193, 202 (N.D. W. Va. 2000) (quoting Parsons v. 13 Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 141 F.R.D. 408, 412 (M.D.N.C. 1992)); see also Schwarzer, Tashima & 14 Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rev. #1 2011) 15 Discovery, para. 11:1886 (“the apparent test is whether a respondent of average intelligence would 16 know what items to produce”). 17 The responding party must respond in writing and is obliged to produce all specified 18 relevant and non-privileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its 19 “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Actual possession, 20 custody or control is not required. “A party may be ordered to produce a document in the 21 possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control 22 over the entity who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 23 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 24 In the alternative, a party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons for the 25 objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B). When a party resists discovery, he “has the burden to 26 show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and 27 supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 189 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998) 28 (citing Nestle Food Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.N.J. 1990)). 2 1 Boilerplate objections to a request for a production are not sufficient. Burlington Northern & 2 Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). If a party “fails to respond that inspection will be permitted - or fails to permit inspection - 3 4 as requested under Rule 34,” the propounding party may make a motion to compel production of 5 documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Further, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, 6 answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 37(a)(4). “The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating ‘actual and substantial prejudice’ 8 from the denial of discovery.” Branch v. Umphenour, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109288 at *10 (E.D. 9 Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) (citing Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). 10 B. Discussion and Analysis 11 The parties agree the defendants requested email communications in TIFF format with the 12 corresponding metadata.1 (Doc. 48 at13) Despite this, the plaintiff produced some TIFF- 13 formatted emails but only after they had been forwarded from the subject computer to the office of 14 the former attorney for the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, this resulted in the metadata 15 being “wholly useless and irrelevant because it pertains to the forwarded versions of the emails to 16 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s paralegal, not the original emails between Plaintiffs and Hancock.” Id. at 9, 17 emphasis deleted. The defendants argue that the metadata from the native versions of the email is crucial 18 19 because it appears that the plaintiffs have produced key emails that are changed when compared to 20 the same emails directed to the recipient. (Doc. 48 at 9-10) The defendants assert that emails 21 appear to have been “whited out from Plaintiffs’ versions, and in other instances new and different 22 text has been inserted into Plaintiff’s versions.” Id. at 10. In one example, the defendants direct the 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The parties “agreed to produce ESI in the following formats: ... For electronic documents and emails, the parties will produce electronically Bates numbered single-page TIFFs with appropriate document breaks, OCR text files, a corresponding load file for the images, and a generic delimited data file for the corresponding metadata . . . Emails and attachments will be referenced to each other in the data file and will be sequential in document numbering so that attachments to emails will follow the email. The metadata to be included shall be as follows: Beginning Production Number, Ending Production Number, Beginning Production Attachment, Ending Production Attachment, File Type, Last Modified Date, Sent Date, Last Modified Time, Sent Time, Author, To, CC, BCC, Subject Line, Custodian, Attachment Count, File Name, Last Accessed Date, Received Date, Full text, Confidentiality designation, Native File Link ....” 3 1 Court’s attention to two versions of the same email2 (Compare 49-2 at 2 with 49-1 at 2). In the 2 plaintiffs’ copy, it states that Hancock’s representative indicate (apparently, when discussing a 3 document related to the sale) that “It’s Acceptable.” (Doc. 49-1 at 2; Doc. 49 at 4) The one 4 produced by Hancock does not have this language. (Doc. 49-2 at 2; Doc. 49 at 4) In a second example, the exact same email sent at the exact same time to the exact same 5 6 people shows additional content [“on crop and Closing Escrow”] on the plaintiff’s copy (Doc. 49-4 7 at 2; Doc. 49 at 5) that is not included on the email received by Hancock (49-6 at 2; Doc. 49 at 5). 8 A third example shows the same e-mail with the plaintiffs’ version (Doc. 49-8 at 2; Doc. 49 at 6) 9 having significantly different content than Hancock’s copy. (Doc. 49-9 at 2; Doc. 49 at 6) 10 Notably, Hancock produced all three of these emails with the associated metadata demonstrating, 11 apparently, no alterations by Hancock. (Doc. 49 at 4-6) The plaintiffs do not address the inconsistencies in the emails. Rather, their attorney (who 12 13 has since been replaced) explained that he did not have any experience in e-discovery and was 14 working with a computer specialist to correct the problem. (Doc. 49 at 14) In light of the 15 significant showing as to the importance of the metadata from the native computer, the Court 16 GRANTS the motion. Thus, the motion to compel as to any request for electronically held 17 documents is GRANTED. Within ten days, the plaintiffs SHALL produce all emails and other 18 documents sought by the defendants in the format demanded with the accompanying metadata 19 from the native computer. A. 20 21 22 23 24 25 RFP’s 2 & 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: The email referenced in paragraph 27 of the COMPLAINT that DHILLON purportedly sent to Danielle Harris on August 4, 2015 with the executed Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Plaintiffs have enclosed herein a copy of the email referenced in paragraph 27. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: The requested email referenced in paragraph 27 of the COMPLAINT is being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All DOCUMENTS that support the allegation in paragraph 27 of YOUR COMPLAINT 27 28 2 Dr. Dhillon was out of the country at the time which seems to explain the differences in the times the emails record. 4 1 2 3 4 5 that on August 4, 2015, DHILLON sent an email to Danielle Harris attaching "the Purchase and Sale Agreement which he had signed as the Director and President of Lerdo, and which had the effective date of August 04, 2015." SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: After completing a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs' emails of August 4, 2015 between Dhillon and Harris are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. The parties dispute whether the plaintiffs provided the emails or the executed sales 6 agreement referenced in the requests. (Doc. 48 at 15-16) However, it is undisputed that to the 7 extent any emails were provided, they were provided without the accompanying relevant metadata. 8 Moreover, the defendants indicate that the plaintiffs provided “a standalone PDF (without 9 metadata) of what appears to be a real estate purchase agreement signed by Dhillon and dated 10 August 4, 2015.” (Doc. 48 at 16) Next, the defendants claim they received “a PDF of what 11 appears to be Dhillon’s August 4, 2015 email sending the unsigned Word version of the draft 12 contract. Id. It appears to the Court that the defendants are arguing that the email that discussed 13 the sales agreement indicated that attached to Dhilon’s email was an unsigned, draft copy and that 14 the plaintiffs have failed to provide an email which supports that Dhillon sent an executed, final 15 copy of the sales agreement. Thus, the motion is GRANTED. Within ten days, the plaintiffs 16 SHALL provide all responsive emails and documents. They SHALL identify by Bates number 17 which documents they intend to respond to these requests. As to the emails and any other 18 electronically held documents, the plaintiffs SHALL provide the records in the format demanded 19 and with the accompanying metadata from the native computer. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. RFP’s 8 & 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All DOCUMENTS that support the allegation in paragraph 38 of YOUR COMPLAINT that "[o]n or about August 15, 2015, Harris sent Dr. Dhillon a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the effective date of August 15, 2015. The Purchase and Sale Agreement included Schedules A-D, and an Escrow Agreement which was attached as Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement." RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement, and the email of August 15, 2015. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement, and the email of August 15, 2015, copies of which are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All DOCUMENTS that support the allegation in paragraph 87 of YOUR COMPLAINT that on August 15, 2015, YOU and GPA entered into an "Agreement regarding Plaintiffs' purchase of the Farmland." RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement, and the email of August 15, 2015. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement, and the email of August 15, 2015, copies of which are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. 8 9 The defendants contend that the plaintiffs have not produced either the email or the 10 attachment thereto. (Doc. 48 at 18) The plaintiffs claim they have produced the documents but do 11 not claim to have identified the documents they believe are responsive by Bates number. Id. Thus, 12 the motion is GRANTED. Within ten days, the plaintiffs SHALL provide all responsive emails 13 and documents. They SHALL identify by Bates number which documents they intend to respond 14 to these requests. As to the emails and any other electronically held documents, the plaintiffs 15 SHALL provide the records in the format demanded and with the accompanying metadata from 16 the native computer. 17 C. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: KERN LERDO' S Articles of Incorporation and any amendments thereto. 19 RFP 53 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Objection: Plaintiffs object on the grounds that this request is seeking information which is an undue invasion of Plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory and common law rights of privacy and confidentiality. In addition, Plaintiffs object on grounds that this interrogatory is seeking information which is protected by the attorney/client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs have enclosed a copy of KERN LERDO' S Articles of Incorporation herein. 24 The defendants contend the plaintiffs failed to provide the Articles of Incorporation and the 20 21 22 25 plaintiffs admit that they failed to do so (Doc. 48 at 19). Thus, the motion to compel as to this 26 request is GRANTED and the plaintiffs SHALL provide all responsive documents within ten 27 days. 28 /// 6 D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All DOCUMENTS created or revised by YOU concerning the PROPERTY, the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, or the subject matter of YOUR COMPLAINT. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.10: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the Purchase and Sale Agreement of August 4, 2015, with edited changes, is being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All DOCUMENTS that relate or refer to the drafting, negotiation, or execution of the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement of August 4, 2015, and the various emails between DHILLON and Danielle Harris as described in the First Amended Claim for Relief, copies of which are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. 11 REQUESTFORPRODUCTION NO. 19: All of the emails referenced or quoted in YOUR COMPLAINT. 12 13 14 RFP’s 10 & 19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: After completing a reasonable and diligent search, all various emails as referenced or quoted in the COMPLAINT that Plaintiffs were able to locate, are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. 15 16 The defendants assert that the plaintiffs failed to produce all responsive documents 17 including e-mail correspondence that they know exist because Hancock produced copies of them. 18 (Doc. 48 at 19-20) The plaintiffs explain that they produced certain documents and certain e-mails 19 but do not address why they failed to produce the emails that Hancock’s records demonstrate exist. 20 Id. at 20-21. Thus, the motion to compel as to these requests is GRANTED. Within ten days, the 21 plaintiffs SHALL produce the Purchase and Sale Agreement of August 4, 2015 in the format 22 demanded with the accompanying metadata from the native computer. In addition, they SHALL 23 produce all responsive email correspondence with the accompanying metadata from the native 24 computer. They SHALL identify by Bates number which documents they intend to respond to 25 these requests. RFP’s 26-27 & 29-30 & 36 26 E. 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All DOCUMENTS that support DHILLON'S claims for damages in YOUR COMPLAINT. 28 /// 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or support the calculation of the damages DHILLON claims in the COMPLAINT. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE[S] TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO[S]. 26 [AND 27]: Objection: Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: DHILLON has determined that as of the date of these supplemental responses, he has incurred an approximate income loss of $28,410,327 from six separate properties which DHILLON had to sell in order to raise the $62,100,000 to purchase the PROPERTY. All six properties were income producing properties, therefore, DHILLON has been deprived of this loss of income. DHILLON has yet to determine the amount of other damages he is entitled to under the COMPLAINT. DHILLON believes that its damages consist of (1) loss of the subject property; (2) the rents, issues, profits thereof; (3) the-increase in the value of the subject property that could have been derived; (4) and exemplary, and/or punitive damages, however, DHILLON has not performed any method or manner to calculate the amount of its damages (not including exemplary, and/or punitive damages). DHILLON anticipates that he will hire an accountant to perform a forensic accounting, but has not done so as of yet. In regards to the approximate income loss of $28,410,327 from the six separate properties, DHILLON has attached a summary which describes each property and explains how the loss income for each property was determined in his supplemental responses to GPA's First Set of interrogatories. Plaintiffs have no other requested DOCUMENTS. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All DOCUMENTS that support KERN LERDO'S claims for damages in YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or support the calculation of the damages KERN LERDO claims in the COMPLAINT. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE[S] TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO[S]. 29 [AND 30]: Objection: Plaintiffs object to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: KERN LERDO' S damages are the same as DHILLON's damages which have been determined as of the date of these supplemental responses. As such, KERN LERDO has incurred an approximate income loss of$28,410,327 from six separate properties which were sold in order to raise the $62,100,000 to purchase the PROPERTY. All six properties were income producing properties, therefore, DHILLON has been deprived of this loss of income. KERN LERDO has yet to determine the amount of other damages it is entitled to under the COMPLAINT. KERN LERDO believes that its damages consist of (1) loss of the subject property; (2) the rents, issues, profits thereof; (3) the increase in the value of the subject property that could have been derived; (4) and exemplary, and/or punitive damages, however, KERN LERDO has not performed any method or manner to calculate the amount of its damages (not including exemplary, and/or punitive damages). KERN LERDO anticipates that it will hire an accountant to perform a forensic accounting, but has not done so as of yet. In regards to the approximate income loss of $28,410,327 from the six separate properties, DHILLON has attached a summary which describes each property and explains how the loss income for each property was determined in his supplemental responses to GPA's First Set of interrogatories. Plaintiffs have no other requested DOCUMENTS. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All DOCUMENTS that support the allegation in paragraph 28 of YOUR COMPLAINT 8 1 2 3 4 5 that DHILLON "took steps to liquidate his assets by selling 93 acres of real estate property that he owned, and selling five gas stations that he owned." SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.36: DHILLON has attached a summary which describes each property and explains how the loss [sic] income for each property was determined in his supplemental responses to GP A's First Set of interrogatories. Plaintiffs have no other requested DOCUMENTS. In response to these requests, the plaintiffs produced a summary of information—part of 6 which is illegible—detailing their basis for their damages calculations. (Doc. 48 at 21-23) As 7 their responses indicate, the plaintiffs contend they were forced to sell properties in preparation for 8 the purchase of the subject property and claim damages related thereto. Id. Consequently, the 9 defendants contend that, at a minimum, there should be evidence of these sales including sales 10 agreements and other related documents. Id. 11 Dhillon, inexplicably, takes the position that the defendants overlooked the summary they 12 provided. (Doc. 48 at 23) Dhillon offers no explanation for the failure to provide the documents 13 related to the sale of the collateral properties or, for example, documents demonstrating the income 14 they claim they received in the past as to the six properties. Clearly, though Dhillon may no longer 15 have personal possession of these documents, he is obligated to obtain them from those, such as 16 escrow companies, banks, financiers, accountants, etc., over whom he exercises control. Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Thus, the motion to compel as to these requests is GRANTED. Within ten days, 18 Dhillon SHALL produce all responsive documents including a legible copy of the summary 19 previously produced. Any electronic documents SHALL be produced in the format demanded 20 with the accompanying metadata from the native computer. Dhillon SHALL identify by Bates 21 number those documents they intend to respond to these requests. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. RFPs 37-42 REQUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO. 37: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the financial condition of DHILLON and his ability to perform the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as of August 4, 2015. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the financial condition of DHILLON and his ability to perform the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as of August 15, 2015. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the financial condition of DHILLON and his ability to perform the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as of September 22, 2015. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the financial condition of KERN LERDO and its ability to perform the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as of August 4, 2015. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the financial condition of KERN LERDO and its ability to perform the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as of August 15, 2015. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: All DOCUMENTS that evidence or reflect the financial condition of KERN LERDO and its ability to perform the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT as of September 22, 2015. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE[S] TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION [NOS. 37421: Objection: Plaintiffs object on the grounds that this request is seeking information which is an undue invasion of Plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory and common law rights of privacy and confidentiality. In addition, Plaintiffs object on grounds that this interrogatory is seeking information which is protected by the attorney/client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. Furthermore, Plaintiffs object on the grounds that said request is unduly burdensome and harassing. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Plaintiffs has previously produced a copy of an Annual Customer Statement of Randeep Dhillon for the Period of: 05/31/2011 - 06/30/2015 which indicates an Ending Cash Balance: 45,503,672.48 and Total Account Equity: 45,504,915.22. After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiff [sic] has located an Account Statement for Bbalebti [sic] Enterprises Inc. from WestAmerica Bank [Docs. 8-16], and the aforementioned Annual Customer Statement [Doc. 21], copies of which are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. 15 16 These requests seek documents that demonstrate Dhillon and Kern Lerdo were financially 17 capable of completing the sale on three dates: August 4, August 15 and September 22, 2015. (Doc. 18 48 at 24-25) In response, Dhillon produced an “Annual Customer Statement of Randeep Dhillon 19 for the Period of 05/31/2011 – 06/30/2015 which indicates an Ending Cash Balance: 20 45,503,672.48 and Total Account Equity: 45,504,915.22.” (Doc. 48 at 25) Clearly, this document 21 is not responsive to the requests. The fact that he had these assets months earlier does not 22 demonstrate he had them on the operative dates. Moreover, Dhillon fails to explain why he simply 23 did not obtain a document from his financial institution demonstrating his financial capability on 24 the dates requested. Kern Lerdo provided no responsive documents though Dhillon now explains 25 that, despite its corporate form, Kern Lerdo failed to maintain a bank account separate from 26 Dhillon. Thus, the motion to compel as to these requests is GRANTED. Within ten days, the 27 plaintiffs SHALL produce all responsive documents and, if, indeed, Kern Lerdo does not have any 28 evidence of its ability to complete the sale on the specified dates, it SHALL amend its response to 10 1 state this. Any electronic documents SHALL be produced in the format demanded with the 2 accompanying metadata from the native computer. The plaintiffs SHALL identify by Bates 3 number which documents they intend to respond to these requests. 4 5 6 7 8 9 G. RFPs 32 & 55 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All DOCUMENTS that support DHILLON'S responses to GPA'S First Set of Interrogatories to DHILLON. REQUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO. 55: All DOCUMENTS that record or reflect KERN LERDO'S expenses and funding from January 2015 to date, including periodic financial statements, annual reports, budgets, general ledgers, tax records, cash disbursement records, cash receipt records, accounts payable records, and any other DOCUMENTS that record or reflect its inflow and outflow of funds during that period. 10 11 The defendants assert that the plaintiffs provided no responsive documents to these 12 requests. (Doc. 48 at 27) The plaintiffs explain that they indicated in response “that after 13 completing a reasonable and diligent search, all such documents that Plaintiffs were able to locate 14 were produced in the separately attached TIFF images.” Id. However, it does not appear that the 15 plaintiffs indicated which of the documents responded to these requests. Thus, the motion to 16 compel as to these requests is GRANTED. Within ten days, the plaintiffs SHALL produce all 17 responsive documents in the format demanded with the accompanying metadata from the native 18 computer. They SHALL identify by Bates number the documents they intend to respond to these 19 requests. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H. RFPs 3 & 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: The GPA executed counterpart to the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: After completing a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were unable to locate an executed counterpart to the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY from GPA. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are not certain whether or not they received an executed counterpart to the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY from GPA. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Any transmittal letter or email communicating to YOU the GPA executed counterpart to the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: After completing a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were unable to locate any 11 1 2 transmittal letter or email communicating the GPA executed counterpart to the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are not certain whether or not they received an executed counterpart to the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding the PROPERTY from GPA. 3 4 The defendants assert that the plaintiffs’ responses to these requests leave it unclear 5 whether the specified documents exist. (Doc. 48 at 28-29) In response, the plaintiffs claim to have 6 made a diligent search and were unable to locate the documents and report a lack of certainty 7 whether they ever received a copy of the documents. Id. The Court agrees that these responses are 8 sufficient. If the defendants wish to clarify whether the plaintiffs contend the documents exist, 9 they can do so through other discovery methods. Thus, the motion to compel as to these requests 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 is DENIED. I. RFPs 7 & 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All DOCUMENTS that support the allegation in paragraph 43 of YOUR COMPLAINT that on August 15, 2015, Danielle Harris submitted an agreement to DHILLON and requested that he sign and return the agreement. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were not able to locate any other DOCUMENTS other than the signed Purchase and Sale Agreement, and the email of August 4, 2015, copies of which are being produced in the separately attached TIFF images. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and HNRG concerning GPA, the PROPERTY, the PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, or the subject matter of YOUR COMPLAINT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were unable to locate any such COMMUNICATIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were unable to locate any such COMMUNICATIONS. 23 The defendants assert that the plaintiffs responded to the request number 7 by referring to 24 August 4, 2015 despite that the request sought information related to August 11, 2015. (Doc. 48 at 25 29-30) Likewise, in response to number 18, the plaintiffs denied any documents existed despite 26 their production as to other requests which plainly demonstrate that documents do exist. (Doc. 3027 31) The plaintiffs indicate that the substance of the responses was correct and that, as to number 7, 28 the date was a typographical error. As to number 18, the plaintiffs indicate they intended the 12 1 response to read that there were no responsive documents other than those produced. Thus, the 2 motion as to this request is GRANTED and the plaintiffs SHALL provide amended responses 3 within ten days. If the plaintiffs wish to rely upon documents produced as to other requests, they 4 SHALL identify by Bates number the documents they intend to respond to these requests. J. 5 6 7 8 9 RFP 44 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: All DOCUMENTS that support the allegation in paragraph 41 of YOUR COMPLAINT that "the 2015 almond crop was vastly improved due to the advice and instructions [of] Dr. Dhillon." SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: After conducting a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiffs were only able to locate a visits log, a copy of which was previously produced. 10 The defendants assert that the plaintiffs failed to provide the “visits log” to which the 11 12 plaintiffs referred in response. (Doc. 48 at 31) The plaintiffs indicate that this must have been an 13 oversight and will produce the “visits log.” Thus, the motion as to this request is GRANTED and 14 the plaintiffs SHALL provide amended responses within ten days. 15 III. Responses to interrogatories 16 A. 17 A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired to under 18 Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). A responding party is obligated to respond to the fullest extent 19 possible, and any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). In 20 general, a responding party is not required “to conduct extensive research in order to answer an 21 interrogatory, but a reasonable effort to respond must be made.” Haney v. Saldana, 2010 U.S. 22 Dist. LEXIS 93447, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (citing L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 U.S. 23 Dist. LEXIS 73753 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007)). Further, the responding party must supplement a 24 response if the information sought is later obtained or the previous response requires a correction. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). 26 27 28 B. Legal Standards Interrogatory 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: DESCRIBE the DOCUMENT through which GPA communicated to YOU its executed counterpart of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between DHILLON and GPA regarding the PROPERTY. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Objection: DHILLON objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term "executed counterpart" is not defined as is, therefore, vague, ambiguous and calls for speculation. Without waiving said objections, DHILLON responds as follows: On July 22, 2015, Danielle Harris sent the Initial Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") to Dr. Dhillon and his agent and/or representative, Doug Phillips. On August 4, 2015, Dr. Dhillon signed the Agreement as the Director and President of Kern Lerdo. On August 15, 2015, Danielle Harris sent Dr. Dhillon the Agreement by email. The Agreement had the effective date of August 15, 2015, and also contained Schedules A-D, and an Escrow Agreement attached as Exhibit A. The Agreement is being produced in Plaintiff's [sic] Responses to First Set of Requests for Production, however, the Bates number has yet to be assigned. 7 8 The interrogatory requests information about how the GPA provided to Dhillon, if it did, 9 the sales agreement after GPA signed it. (Doc. 48 at 31-32) In response, Dhillon explained how 10 he received a copy of the sales agreement for his signature, when he signed it and a description of 11 the attachments to the sales agreement. Id. at 32. Clearly, this response does not address whether 12 Dhillon ever received or learned whether GPA signed, in counterpart, the sales agreement. Thus, 13 the motion is GRANTED. Within ten days, Dhillon SHALL provide an amended response. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 C. Interrogatory 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: DESCRIBE the method or manner used to calculate the amount of DHILLON'S damages claim, including, without limitation, any assumptions, conclusions, or methodology used in the calculation. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Objection: DHILLON objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Without waiving said objections, DHILLON responds as follows: In regards to the approximate income loss of $28,410,327 from the six separate properties, DHILLON has attached a summary which describes each property and explains how the loss income for each property was determines [sic]. DHILLON has yet to determine the amount of other damages it is entitled to under the COMPLAINT. DHILLON believes that its damages consist of(1) loss of the subject property; (2) the rents, issues, profits thereof; (3) the increase in the value of the subject property that could have been derived; (4) and exemplary, and/or punitive damages, however, DHILLON has not performed any method or manner to calculate the amount of its damages (not including exemplary, and/or punitive damages). DHILLON anticipates that it will hire an accountant to perform a forensic accounting, but has not done so as of yet. 24 25 In response to this interrogatory, Dhillon provided a one-page spreadsheet. (Doc. 48 at 33- 26 34) Parts of the spreadsheet had been “greyed out” and are illegible as Dhillon admits. Id. Thus, 27 the motion as to this interrogatory is GRANTED. Dhillon SHALL provide a legible copy of the 28 spreadsheet within ten days. 14 1 D. 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State the fair market value of the PROPERTY on September 22, 2015. 3 4 Interrogatory 11 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: DHILLON claims that the fair market value of the PROPERTY on August 17, 2015 was the amount of his bid- $62,100,000. 5 6 In response to this interrogatory which inquires as to the fair market value of the property 7 on September 22, 2015, Dhillon responded with the fair market value on August 17, 2015. (Doc. 8 48 at 34-35) Dhillon explains that this was the only information he had but failed to explain this in 9 the response or to explain whether he believes the value was unchanged on September 22, 2015 10 and why. Thus, Dhillon has failed to provide a responsive answer to the interrogatory and the 11 motion is GRANTED. Dhillon SHALL provide an amended response within ten days. 12 IV. Objections 13 The defendants contend that because the responses to the discovery requests were not 14 timely, any objections were waived. The Court agrees. See e.g., Davis v. Fendler, 650 F. 2d 1154, 15 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that untimely service of response to interrogatories waives the 16 objections when objection raised fifteen months after the interrogatories had been propounded); 17 See also, Richmark Corporation v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F. 2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 18 1992) (stating that failure to object to document requests within the time required constitutes a 19 waiver of any objection when no response was made and objections were not raised in a motion to 20 compel). On the other hand, the failure to respond timely does not necessarily waive objections 21 22 based upon privilege. Nevertheless, here, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs ever provided a 23 privilege log and they admit that, despite asserting objections, they provided substantive responses. 24 (Doc. 48 at 35) Thus, any objections based upon privilege were waived. Burlington N. & Santa Fe 25 Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). 26 IV. 27 28 Request for Sanctions Defendant requests monetary sanctions for the plaintiffs’ failure to timely and properly respond to discovery and, as a consequence, for being forced to file this motion to compel. (Doc. 15 1 48 at 35-36) Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue 2 sanctions to “penalize some forms of discovery abuse.” Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., 762 3 F.2d 1334, 1338-39. When, as here, a motion to compel discovery is granted in part and denied in 4 part, the Court may award “reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). In reviewing the plaintiffs’ responses, most of them fail to provide any adequate 5 6 justification for the failures demonstrated here.3 Moreover, the plaintiffs fail to explain why, when 7 the deficiencies were pointed out to them, they did not immediately amend. Rather, they forced 8 the filing of this motion and forced the waste of the resources of the defendants and this Court. 9 This is unacceptable and fails to meet the spirit of their obligations. However, the amount 10 suggested, $10,000, is not proportional to demands of this motion. Rather, the Court finds 12 11 hours to be a reasonable amount of time to prepare the motion and gather the evidentiary support. 12 Thus, the Court GRANTS the request for sanctions imposed on the plaintiffs in the amount of 13 $4,800. The plaintiffs SHALL pay this sanction amount to counsel for the defendants within ten 14 days. ORDER 15 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. 18 to requests for production number 3 and 4. As to these requests, the motion is DENIED; 2. 19 20 The defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 47) is GRANTED in all respects except as The defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in PART in the amount of $4,800. The plaintiffs SHALL pay this amount to counsel for the defendants within 10 days. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 3 For example, the lack of competency to respond to electronic discovery is absolutely not a sufficient explanation for the failure to provide proper responses and persisting in this explanation repeatedly through the joint statement as reasonable, frankly, is absurd. 16

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.