16-CIV-02941 CHERIF MEDAWAR, et al. vs. NYLE MAMEESH, et al.

NYLE MAMEESH MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

CHERIF MEDAWAR NIALL P. MCCARTHY

motion to compel further RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CHERIF MEDAWAR’S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT NYLE MAMEESH

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Cherif Medawar’s motion to compel Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nyle Mameesh to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as set forth below.

As the parties to this case have argued many times in the context of other motions, Defendant Mameesh argues the meet and confer requirement was not met. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer in-person regarding these document requests on 2-27-18, and also sent a meet and confer letter that same day. Defense counsel (Mr. Liberty) responded on 2-28-18, claiming there had been no proper meet and confer. Under the circumstances here where Plaintiff’s counsel was attempting to meet and confer while the parties were busy preparing for trial and taking a large number of depositions, the Court finds the meet and confer was sufficient.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion seeks to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s document requests, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.310. Plaintiff, however, has submitted a proposed Order requesting that the Court order Defendant to produce the requested documents. Consistent with the Notice, the Court treats this motion as a motion to compel further responses.

Defendant’s responses to the document requests at issue here consist entirely of objections. Yet in his Opposition, Mr. Mameesh in several instances argues he has already produced the responsive documents. Defendant cannot merely state objections, and then in response to a motion to compel, argue that the responsive documents were already produced. Plaintiff is entitled to a code-compliant response to each document request, clearly stating whether Defendant is agreeing to produce all responsive documents.

Mr. Mameeth’s Opposition also argues he should not have to re-produce documents that he already produced. There is, of course, no requirement that Defendant produce the same documents multiple times.

Discovery rights are generally broad. As both parties have done throughout this case, Defendant Mameesh disputes the relevance of virtually all of requests at issue. In most cases (the exceptions are discussed below), this objection lacks merit. In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2017.010; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 [“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence”]). The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 554.

Request Nos. 1-2. GRANTED-IN-PART. The Requests are broad and unlimited in time. They also seek documents that do not pertain to the three properties at issue in the case. The Requests also impinge on privacy rights of third parties. Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that the relevance and/or need for the documents outweighs the privacy concerns. However, if responsive documents exist that relate to the three properties at issue here (the Washington St., Clay St., and Maple St. properties), then they are discoverable. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mr. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search, but only to the extent they pertain to the three properties at issue here. The motion is OTHERWISE DENIED.

Request No. 5. GRANTED-IN-PART. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search.

Request Nos. 6-10. DENIED. These requests seek private financial information pertaining to third parties. The properties/projects identified in these Requests are not the subject of the lawsuit. Plaintiff has not shown that the requested documents’ relevance and/or Plaintiff’s need for the documents outweighs the third party privacy concerns.

Request No. 12. GRANTED-IN-PART. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search, but only to the extent the documents pertain to MIGSIF and/or the three properties at issue.

Request Nos. 13-19, 21, 25. GRANTED-IN-PART. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search, but only to the extent the documents pertain to the three properties at issue (not other properties).

Request No. 22. DENIED. The moving papers provide no explanation of why the requested documents are relevant.

Request Nos. 23, 27-28. GRANTED. Except for attorney-client privilege and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search.

Request No. 29. DENIED. The requested documents appear protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.

Request Nos. 30-31, 34. GRANTED-IN-PART. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search, but only to the extent the documents pertain to the three properties at issue (not other properties).

Request No. 33. DENIED. The moving papers do not adequately explain why the requested documents are relevant.

Request Nos. 35-41. DENIED. The requested documents impinge on third party privacy rights, and they do not pertain to the three properties at issue. The moving papers do not adequately explain why such documents are needed and/or relevant to the case.

Request Nos. 42, 50-52, 54-56. GRANTED-IN-PART, but only to the extent the documents (if any) related to the three properties at issue. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search, but only to the extent the documents pertain to the three properties at issue (not other properties).

Request Nos. 43-48. DENIED. The requested documents impinge on third party privacy rights, and they do not pertain to the three properties at issue. The moving papers do not adequately explain why such documents are needed and/or relevant to the case.

Request Nos. 64-65. DENIED. The moving papers do not adequately explain why the requested documents are relevant.

Request Nos. 67-68. DENIED. The requested documents appear to be either attorney-client privileged or work product. Further, the moving papers provide no explanation of relevance.

Request No. 74. GRANTED-IN-PART, but only to the extent the responsive documents (if any) relate to the three properties at issue. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search, but only to the extent the documents pertain to the three properties at issue (not other properties).

Request No. 81. GRANTED. Except for attorney-client privileged and work product documents, the objections are OVERRULED. Mameesh shall serve a further response agreeing to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control that can be located following a reasonably diligent search.

Request No. 86. DENIED. Although the parties apparently developed this property together, it occurred many years ago, and this property is not the subject of the lawsuit. The moving papers do not sufficiently explain the relevance of the requested documents.

Consistent with this Order, Defendant Mameesh shall serve code-compliant, further responses to Plaintiff Medawar’s Requests for Production (Set Three) within 10 days of this Order.