Sattari v. Citi Mortgage, No. 2:2009cv00769 - Document 62 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER granting 44 Motion to Compel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Countermotion to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production 53 is granted in part and denied in part as follows:Defendants o bjections to Plaintiffs interrogatory no. 4 are overruled. Citimortgage shall produce a copy of its most recent annual financial statement that it regularly makes available to the public on or before November 30, 2010.Defendants objections to Plaintiffs requests for production and interrogatories no. 1, 5 and 6 are upheld and Defendant is not required to respond further. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 11/16/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sattari v. Citi Mortgage Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 MICHAEL SATTARI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CITI MORTGAGE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:09-cv-00769-RLH-GWF ORDER Motion to Compel (#44) Counter-Motion to Compel (#53) 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Citimortgage, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s 15 Responses to Unanswered Interrogatories and Unanswered Requests for Production of Documents 16 (#44), filed August 24, 2010; Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Citimortgage’s Motion to Compel to 17 Unanswered Interrogatories and Unanswered Requests for Production (#49), filed September 20, 2010; 18 Plaintiff’s Countermotion to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for 19 Production (#53), filed September 20, 2010; Defendant Citimortgage, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Its 20 Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Unanswered Interrogatories and Unanswered Requests for 21 Production of Documents and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Counter motion to Compel Defendant to 22 Answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production (#50), filed September 23, 2010. The 23 Court held a hearing on this matter on September 27, 2010. 24 1. 25 Defendant Citimortgage, Inc. (“Citimortgage”) requests that this Court compel Plaintiff to Citimortgage, Inc.’s Motion to Compel (#44) 26 respond to its requests for production and interrogatories, which Citimortgage argues are relevant and 27 reasonable as they go to the heart of Plaintiff’s claims and Citimortgage’s potential defenses. (#44). 28 Plaintiff responds that Defendant’s requests are unduly burdensome and not relevant. (#49). Upon Dockets.Justia.com 1 review of the discovery requests at issue, the Court finds that they seek specific information related to 2 Plaintiff’s income, expenses and credit information. Defendant’s inquiries are related to Plaintiff’s 3 fraud claim, unfair business practices claim and the allegation that Defendant’s actions have harmed 4 Plaintiff’s credit. As a result, the Court finds that Citimortgage’s requests for production and 5 interrogatories are relevant and not unduly burdensome. Plaintiff will be ordered to substantively 6 respond to the discovery requests. 7 2. 8 Plaintiff similarly seeks the Court’s intervention to compel Citimortgage to respond to his 9 10 interrogatories and requests for production. (#53). Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in a timely manner, but asserted various objections. 11 a. 12 13 Sattari’s Counter-Motion to Compel (#53) Interrogatories Before examining Plaintiff’s interrogatories for relevance and reasonableness, the Court will offer a brief discussion of the proper scope of interrogatories as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 14 When preparing interrogatories, each “interrogatory should consist of a brief, simple, direct, and 15 unambiguous question, dealing with one point only. The question should be objective and 16 nonargumentative.” Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 187 (D.Kan. 1997)(citing William W. 17 Schwarzer, et. al., CIVIL DISCOVERY AND MANDATORY DISCLOSURE: A GUIDE TO EFFICIENT PRACTICE, 18 4-5 to 4-7 (2d ed. 1994)). Interrogatories “should not seek narrative answers or attempt to argue, 19 cross-examine, or impeach. They should be written so that the question and the expected answer can be 20 understood easily when read at trial.” Id. When propounding interrogatories, a party “should have 21 clearly in mind what information he seeks and what he intends to do with it.” Id. In addition, 22 interrogatories “should be targeted at discrete issues, rather than blanketing the case, and should be few 23 in number.” Id. Courts look askance at “sets of interrogatories that appear to be unduly burdensome, 24 and may demand a justification for the interrogatories before ordering responses.” Hilt, 170 F.R.D. at 25 188. 26 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether particular interrogatories are unduly 27 burdensome or overly broad and should not be answered. Wright, Miller & Marcus, FEDERAL 28 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL § 2176 at 77 (3rd ed. 2010). In ruling on such objections, courts 2 1 apply a proportionality approach that balances the burden on the interrogated party against the benefit 2 that having the information would provide to the party submitting the interrogatory. An objection may 3 be sustained if the interrogatory objected to is adequately covered by other interrogatories. Id. § 2174 at 4 64-69. 5 Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendants to substantively respond to interrogatories 6 No. 1, 4, 5 and 6. (#53 at 5-6). The Court will now examine the interrogatories at issue and 7 Defendant’s responses to determine whether Defendant should be compelled to supplement its 8 responses: 9 Interrogatory No. 1: Objections upheld as vague and ambiguous. 10 Plaintiff requests that Defendant identify the person “in charge of Defendant” who will answer 11 the interrogatories. (#53 at 9). Defendant objected to the interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to 12 the phrase “in charge of Defendant”.1 (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s phrasing of the interrogatory 13 makes this request confusing. It is unclear whether Plaintiff merely requests the name of the person 14 answering the discovery requests for Citimortgage or whether he wants the names of management at 15 Citimortgage who could be considered to be “in charge” of the defendant. Defendant is not required to 16 puzzle out what Plaintiff intended to say in his interrogatory. An interrogatory should consist of a brief, 17 simple, direct and unambiguous question. See Hilt, 170 F.R.D. at 187. As a result, the Court upholds 18 Defendant’s objections as the request is vague and ambiguous. 19 The Court notes, however, that to the extent that Plaintiff merely sought the name of the person 20 who prepared responses to the interrogatories, Defendant did provide such information after raising 21 various objections. (See #53 at 9). 22 Interrogatory No. 4: Objections are overruled. 23 Plaintiff requests that Defendant “state the assets and liabilities of Citimortgage”. (#53 at 10). 24 Defendant objects that the interrogatory is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, is intended to 25 vex and harass Citimortgage and an undue burden for Defendant to produce as the information is a 26 27 28 1 As the Court has upheld Defendant’s vague and ambiguous objections to Interrogatory No. 1, the Court will not address Defendant’s second objection to the discovery request as improperly attempting to state a legal conclusion. 3 1 matter of public record. (Id.) The Court finds that the financial information sought may be relevant to 2 Plaintiff’s claims for fraud and unfair business practices.2 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint seeks 3 punitive damages related to these claims. (#25 at 9). A company’s net worth and financial condition 4 are relevant and admissible to establish the appropriate amount of punitive damages. See City of 5 Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981) (noting that “evidence of a tortfeasor's 6 wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure of the amount of punitive damages that should be 7 awarded.”); Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D.Cal.1998) (evidence of net 8 worth crucial to issue of punitive damages); United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc., 184 F.3d 924, 932 9 (8th Cir.1999) (under federal law, evidence of defendant's financial worth traditionally admissible for 10 purpose of evaluating amount of punitive damages). Therefore, the Court finds that the information is 11 potentially relevant and within the scope of discovery and the Court will overrule Defendant’s 12 relevance objection. As the financial information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court also finds 13 that the interrogatory is not intended to harass or vex Citimortgage. The Court will therefore overrule 14 this objection. 15 Defendant also argues that it is an undue burden on them to have to provide Plaintiff with 16 financial information because it is public record. In determining whether an interrogatory is an undue 17 burden, the Court must weigh the burden to the respondent against how reasonable it is to require the 18 requesting party to obtain the records through other means. In this instance, Plaintiff might obtain the 19 financial information at issue by requesting them from a state or federal agency to which Citimortgage 20 is required to file annual reports. However, Defendant created the most recent annual financial reports 21 that were filed with these agencies and the burden is minimal for Citimortgage to produce its own 22 annual financial report. Defendant’s undue burden objection is overruled. Citimortgage shall produce 23 to Plaintiff a copy of its most recent financial statement that it regularly makes available to the public. 24 ... 25 ... 26 27 28 2 On March 3, 2010, the Court granted in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (#35). The Court dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims, but Plaintiff’s claims for fraud and unfair business practices survived. (Id.) 4 1 Interrogatories No. 5-6: 2 Objections upheld as the interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. 3 In interrogatory number five (5), Plaintiff requests that Defendant state the number of lawsuits 4 filed against Citimortgage since January 2006, as well as the number of these lawsuits that have been 5 settled out of Court and remain pending. (#53 at 10). Defendant objects to the interrogatory on the 6 basis that it is overly broad, creates an undue burden, is intended to vex or harass Defendant and is not 7 relevant to any party’s claims or defenses.3 (Id. at 10-11). Asking Defendant to calculate the total 8 number of lawsuits, as well as settled and pending lawsuits, over a four year period without any 9 geographical or subject matter limitation is an unduly burdensome request. Defendant’s objection is 10 upheld as Plaintiff’s interrogatory is unreasonably broad and puts an undue burden on Citimortgage. 11 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the interrogatory is relevant to any party’s 12 claims or defenses. He argues that the interrogatory is intended to “establish the pattern of predatory 13 and fraudulent conduct of Defendant”. (Id. at 5). However, Plaintiff has failed to show how the 14 number of lawsuits where Citimortgage has been named as a defendant might demonstrate that 15 Citimortgage has engaged in alleged fraudulent conduct. The defendant may have been named in 16 numerous lawsuits based on non-fraudulent business conduct or based on the frivolous claims. As a 17 result, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s interrogatory is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 18 Defendant’s objection is upheld. 19 For similar reasons, the Court upholds Defendant’s objections to interrogatory number six (6), 20 in which Plaintiff requests the number of foreclosures instituted against Citimortgage homeowners 21 since 2006 and how many are settled and pending. (#53 at 11-12). As discussed above, the requests are 22 not limited by geography or subject matter and are therefore overly broad and create an undue burden 23 on Citimortgage. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how such calculations are relevant to 24 any party’s claims or defenses in this action. Defendant’s overly broad, undue burden and relevance 25 objections are upheld. 26 27 28 3 As the Court has upheld Defendant’s overly broad, unduly burdensome and relevance objections to Interrogatories number 5-6, the Court will not address Defendant’s additional objections. 5 1 b. 2 Plaintiff’s countermotion also requests that the Court order Defendant to produce documents in Requests for Production 3 response to his requests for production. (#53 at 6). Mr. Sattari seeks “certified copies of all documents 4 pertaining to the origination of Plaintiff’s mortgage and procurement of Original note”. (Id.) 5 Defendant responds that it has provided Plaintiff with all of these documents as digitally scanned .pdf 6 files on 2 CDs. (#50 at 6). Plaintiff argues that he is unable to use the CDs provided and that modern 7 technology is burdensome for him. (#49 at 6). While the plaintiff may not be familiar with the 8 technology involved in electronic discovery, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may 9 disclose documents in electronic form. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E). As Defendant’s disclosure of the 10 documents requested by CD is in compliance with the Rules, Plaintiff’s request for the Court to compel 11 Defendant to produce the documents in paper form will be denied. 12 As the Court suggested to Plaintiff during the hearing on this matter, Plaintiff may be able to 13 find assistance to view the electronic discovery at a local library, copy center business or other business 14 that deals in electronic discovery. Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Citimortgage, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s 16 Responses to Unanswered Interrogatories and Unanswered Requests for Production of Documents 17 (#44) is granted. Plaintiff shall substantively respond to Defendant’s discovery requests on or before 18 November 30, 2010. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Countermotion to Compel Defendant to Answer 20 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production (#53) is granted in part and denied in part as 21 follows: 22 1. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatory no. 4 are overruled. Citimortgage 23 shall produce a copy of its most recent annual financial statement that it regularly makes 24 available to the public on or before November 30, 2010. 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... 28 ... 6 1 2 3 2. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s requests for production and interrogatories no. 1, 5 and 6 are upheld and Defendant is not required to respond further. DATED this 16th day of November, 2010. 4 5 6 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
