Skye Orthobiologics, LLC v. CTM Biomedical, LLC
Skye Orthobiologics, LLC v. CTM Biomedical, LLC
2022 WL 17345906 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
October 4, 2022
Castillo, Pedro V., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court found that the ESI was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and ordered Defendant Boulais to provide the requested information. The Court also authorized the redactions of privileged and confidential information, protecting the privacy of any ESI that was provided. Boulais was required to redact privileged and confidential information, such as his social security number, bank account numbers, etc., but was required to serve a privilege log of the redactions simultaneously with the production.
Additional Decisions
SKYE ORTHOBIOLOGICS, LLC, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
CTM BIOMEDICAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
v.
CTM BIOMEDICAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
Case No. CV 20-3444 MEMF (PVCx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Signed October 04, 2022
Counsel
John James Aumer, Neda Farah, Michael Forman, Laura Kelly St Martin, Ryan D. Saba, Rosen Saba LLP, El Segundo, CA, Justin L. Wilson, Francesca Dioguardi, Rosen Saba LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff.Paul T. Martin, Thomas H. Case, Hennelly and Grossfeld LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew K. Parker, Pro Hac Vice, Hodgson Russ LLP, New York, NY, Ryan K. Cummings, Robert J. Fluskey, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.
Castillo, Pedro V., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT NATHAN BOULAIS (Dkt. No. 163)
I.
INTRODUCTION
*1 On July 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Skye Orthobiologics, LLC and Human Regenerative Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to compel production of certain financial documents and further interrogatory responses from Defendant Nathan Boulais (“Boulais”). (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 163). The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation in connection with the Motion pursuant to Local Rule 37-2, (“Jt. Stip.,” Dkt. No. 163-1), supported by the declaration of Ryan D. Saba and accompanying exhibits. (“Saba Decl.,” Dkt. No. 163-2).[1]
Before the instant Motion was filed, Boulais filed a motion for review with the District Judge seeking review of an earlier discovery order that required production of other financial information. (“Motion for Review,” Dkt. No. 160, seeking review of Order, Dkt. No. 157, resolving motion to compel filed at Dkt. No. 153). Because the issues raised in the Motion for Review appeared interrelated with matters at issue in the instant Motion, the Magistrate Judge vacated the scheduled hearing on the instant Motion and stated that after the District Judge ruled on the Motion for Review, the Court would reset the hearing. (Dkt. No. 167). The District Judge denied the Motion for Review on September 16, 2022. (Dkt. No. 177). On September 20, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order setting September 30, 2022 as the deadline for filing optional supplemental memoranda with respect to the instant Motion and reset the hearing for October 11, 2022. (Dkt. No. 178). On September 30, 2022, Boulais filed a “supplemental statement” ostensibly in connection with the instant Motion. (Dkt. No. 194). However, despite its explicit reference to Dkt. No. 163, the “supplemental statement” did not address the financial information sought by the instant Motion, but instead appears to concern discovery related to the earlier motion to compel (Dkt. No. 153) that was the subject of Boulais's Motion for Review before the District Judge. (Dkt. No. 160).[2]
Briefing has now closed. The Court concludes that the Motion is capable of resolution without a hearing. See L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for October 11, 2022 on the Motion (Dkt. No. 163) is VACATED. For the reasons stated below and on the record at the hearing, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Boulais shall serve supplemental written discovery responses and documents as required by this Order no later than October 12, 2022.
II.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
*2 This matter arises from the alleged appropriation of Plaintiffs' trade secrets by Bryan Banman, one of Plaintiffs' former executives, and Banman's creation of a new business, CTM Biomedical, LLC and CTM Medical, Inc. (collectively, “CTM”), which compete in the same business space as Plaintiffs. In the operative Fourth Amended Complaint, (“4AC,” Saba Decl., Exh. A), Plaintiffs allege that Banman and others, including Boulais, conspired to violate RICO by misappropriating Plaintiffs' customer lists, customer order history, specific customer pricing/discount rates, pricing lists, sales materials, and billing guidelines to help form CTM and interfere with Plaintiffs' legitimate business interests. (Id. ¶ 146). During the relevant period, Boulais was an independent sales representative who acted as an independent contractor for Plaintiffs and a number of other, unrelated companies. (Id. ¶¶ 143-145; see also Jt. Stip. at 6). Plaintiffs allege that Boulais, while he was still purporting to represent Plaintiffs, was acting as a sales representative for CTM and attempted to convince customers to switch their business from Plaintiffs to CTM. (4AC ¶¶ 147-159). The only claims alleged against Boulais are for violations of civil RICO, (id. ¶¶ 162-181), and conspiracy to violate civil RICO. (Id. ¶¶ 182-187).
III.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the 4AC, which named Boulais for the first time as a party to this action. (Saba Decl. ¶ 3 & Exh. A). On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs served their third set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) and first set of Interrogatories on Boulais. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. B-C). Boulais responded on June 15, 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7 & Exhs. D-E). The parties met and conferred to address Plaintiffs' concerns about the adequacy of Boulais's responses on June 22 and June 23, 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 10). As required by this Court's November 1, 2021 Order, (id., Exh. F), prior to filing the instant Motion, the parties met and conferred via Zoom. (Id. ¶ 10). A copy of the transcript of the conference of counsel is attached to Saba's declaration at Exhibit H. Despite the parties' efforts, the parties were not able to resolve all of their differences. The fact discovery cut-off in this matter is October 12, 2022. (Id., Exh. J at 3).
IV.
SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE DISCOVERY
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended on December 1, 2015, provides:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “The relevance standard is commonly recognized as one that is necessarily broad in scope in order to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Raya v. Barka, 2022 WL 686460, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022) (quoting Doherty v. Comenity Capital Bank & Comenity Bank, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2017); internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sci. Games Corp. v. AGS LLC, 2017 WL 3013251, at *2 (D. Nev. July 13, 2017) (“Even after the 2015 amendments, courts continue to recognize that discovery relevance remains ‘broad’ in scope.”). “The proportionality inquiry [in Rule 26(b)(1)] focuses, at bottom, on analyzing the marginal utility of the discovery being sought.” V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 314 (D. Nev. 2019) (citing In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prod. Liab. Litig., 180 F. Supp. 3d 273, 280 n.43 (S.D. N.Y. 2016)).
While the scope of permissible discovery may be broad, because discovery must be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, the right to discovery, even plainly relevant discovery, is not limitless. The 2015 amendments to Rule 26 “were designed to protect against over-discovery and to emphasize judicial management of the discovery process, especially for those cases in which the parties do not themselves effectively manage discovery.” Noble Roman's, Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distrib. Co., 314 F.R.D. 304, 308 (S.D. Ind. 2016); see also Davita HealthCare Partners, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 394, 398 (2016) (the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules “contribute to the overall goal of regulating the time and expense of litigation”). “Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance. In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”).
V.
DISCUSSION
*3 Plaintiffs seek further responses to four requests for production and two interrogatories. RFP Nos. 64-66 and Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 seek information about Boulais's assets, liabilities, and current net worth. RFP No. 67 seeks documents showing the amount of income Boulais received from Defendant CTM Biomedical from June 1, 2018 to the present. The Court will address RFP No. 67 separately from the other disputed requests.
A. RFP Nos. 64-66 And Interrogatory Nos. 1-2
1. The Disputed Requests And Responses
RFP No. 64: Documents and Communications which identify your assets in excess of $10,000.
RFP No. 65: Documents and Communications which identify your liabilities in excess of $10,000.
RFP No. 66: Documents which establish your current net worth and financial condition.
(Saba Decl., Exh. B at 5-6) (emphasis added).
Interrogatory No. 1: List all of your current assets in excess of $10,000.
Interrogatory No. 2: List all of your current liabilities in excess of $10,000.
(Id., Exh. C at 3) (emphasis added).
Responses to RFP Nos. 64-66: Responding Party incorporates by this reference his General Responses and Continuing Objections set forth above.[3] This Request is not proportional to the needs of the case and the likelihood that the documents requested will lead to admissible evidence is outweighed by the unreasonable expense and undue burden imposed on Responding Party. Additionally, this Request violates and unduly burdens the rights of privacy of Responding Party or third parties. Responding Party further objects to the extent the Request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the tax return privilege, or any other applicable privilege or protection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, particularly as to the term “assets in excess of $10,000.”[4] This Request is further vague and unduly burdensome with respect to the term “your” since the term as defined encompasses Responding Party's “agents,” “representatives,” and, ostensibly, his attorneys, and thus calls for privileged attorney client communications, work product, and other private information not proportional to the needs of this case.
(Id., Exh. D at 3-4).
Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-2: Responding Party incorporates by this reference his General Responses and Continuing Objections set forth above.[5] Furthermore, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: This Interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this action, not admissible in evidence, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Interrogatory is not proportional to the needs of the case and the likelihood that the information requested will lead to admissible evidence is outweighed by the unreasonable expense and undue burden imposed on Responding Party. This Interrogatory violates and unduly burdens the rights of privacy of Responding Party and third parties. This Interrogatory is unduly overbroad. This Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, particularly as to the term “current assets in excess of $10,000.”[6]
(Id., Exh. E at 1-2).
2. The Parties' Contentions
*4 Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to information about Boulais's “financial condition” from 2017 to the present. (Jt. Stip. at 8). While Plaintiffs assert that they have agreed to limit their production requests to documents “sufficient to identify” Boulais's assets, liabilities, and financial condition, they argue that they are entitled to such information for a more than five-year span, from three years before this action was filed to the present, “to determine whether there were significant modifications of his balances after the filing of the lawsuit, in order to get an accurate depiction of Boulais's financial condition.” (Id.). According to Plaintiffs, the limitation on the RFPs to “documents sufficient to show” adequately addresses Boulais's proportionality objections. (Id. at 10). Furthermore, requesting information about Boulais's assets and liabilities is a “less intrusive” way of obtaining financial information and avoids any privacy concerns that might arise from seeking tax returns. (Id.). Plaintiffs further state that during the parties' June 23, 2022 meet and confer, Boulais did not object to Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 and stated that he would provide substantive responses. (Id. at 12) (citing Saba Decl., Exh. H at 9:10-19). However, he has not done so. (Jt. Stip. at 12).
Boulais states that he is willing to produce “non-objectionable financial documents,” and is working with his counsel to do so. (Id.). However, he notes that some district courts have limited punitive damage discovery to information sufficient to show a defendant's current net worth, and some even require a party seeking punitive-related discovery to make a showing of an entitlement to punitive damages as a condition for ordering disclosure of financial information. (Id. at 13). Boulais further argues that Plaintiffs have not shown how his income from other sources is in any way relevant to his alleged culpability for the RICO claims against him in this case. (Id.). Boulais also complains that Plaintiffs are seeking unredacted bank statements (and other financial documents) over a protracted period, even though such information would not give Plaintiffs an accurate picture of his current financial worth. (Id. at 14). Boulais therefore asks the Court to “deny or narrow” RFP Nos. 64-66 and Interrogatory Nos. 1-2. (Id.). Alternatively, Boulais states that the Court should limit the responsive period to the preceding twelve months and authorize the redactions of privileged and confidential information. (Id. at 15).
3. Ruling
The Court notes as a preliminary matter that RFP No. 66 seeks “Documents which establish [Boulais's] current net worth and financial condition,” and that Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 ask Boulais to list his “current assets” and his “current liabilities” in excess of $10,000. (Saba Decl., Exh. B at 6 & Exh. C at 3) (emphasis added). The Court is not inclined to rewrite Plaintiffs' discovery requests to require disclosure of more information than they ask for on their face, although it recognizes that the term “current” may be subject to interpretation. With that observation, only RFP Nos. 64 and 65 –– which ask, respectively, for documents identifying Boulais's assets and liabilities in excess of $10,000, without further qualification –– would appear to be potentially subject to the five-year period for which Plaintiffs now seek production, from 2017 to the present.
It is difficult to understand why production of documents for a three-year period before this action was filed on April 14, 2020 would be necessary for Plaintiffs “to determine whether there were significant modifications of [Boulais's] balances after the filing of the lawsuit ....” (Jt. Stip. at 8). Even if the Court were to find that Plaintiffs are entitled to determine what Boulais's assets and liabilities were before the lawsuit was filed to establish a baseline that would permit them to track allegedly suspicious post-lawsuit changes, it would appear that establishing Boulais's financial condition very shortly before this action was filed would suffice for that purpose. Fluctuations in Boulais's assets and liabilities two and three years before the lawsuit was filed cannot reasonably be construed as a reaction to the lawsuit. Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiffs allege that “Boulais had been conspiring with the RICO Defendants [only] as early as March 2018 to target Skye's existing customers with trade secret inside knowledge of Skye's customers' preferences and order history, and then convince Skye's customers to purchase products from CTM instead of Skye.” (Id. at 2) (citing 4AC ¶ 149). In RFP No. 67, Plaintiffs seek production of documents showing Boulais's income from CTM only from June 2018 forward. Even if the Court were to accept that Boulais began participating in the alleged conspiracy in March 2018 and began deriving income from that conspiracy in June 2018, the expansive period for which Plaintiffs seek financial information would not be warranted.
*5 At the same time, Boulais's responses to the production requests are facially improper, at least in part. The December 1, 2015 revisions to the Federal Rules amended Rule 34 to require that objections to requests for production be stated with specificity, and that the responding party affirmatively state whether any documents are being withheld pursuant to an objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (“An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”). The 2015 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 34 explain:
Rule 34(b)(2)(B) is amended to require that objections to Rule 34 requests be stated with specificity. This provision adopts the language from Rule 33(b)(4) [pertaining to interrogatories], eliminating any doubt that less specific objections might be suitable under Rule 34. The specificity of the objection ties to the new provision in Rule 34(b)(2)(C) directing that an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection ... [¶] Rule 34(b)(2)(C) is amended to provide that an objection to a Rule 34 request must state whether anything is being withheld on the basis of the objection .... [T]he producing party does not need to provide a detailed description or log of all documents withheld, but does need to alert other parties to the fact that documents have been withheld and thereby facilitate an informed discussion of the objection.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Advisory Committee Notes (2015 Amendment).
Furthermore, although a responding party may object to a request, boilerplate assertions of any type, including unexplained or unsupported assertions of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, trade secrets, etc., are improper in federal court. See, e.g., A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper –– especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections .... Similarly, boilerplate relevancy objections, without setting forth any explanation or argument why the requested documents are not relevant, are improper.”); Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 379 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“[U]nexplained and unsupported boilerplate objections are improper.”); Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005) (boilerplate privilege assertions are ineffective, and a failure to properly assert a privilege may “waive or otherwise abandon the privilege”). Similarly, several courts have rejected boilerplate assertions that a discovery request is “disproportionate” and require that “objections based on proportionality” be “explained with specificity.” Polycarpe v. Seterus, Inc., 2017 WL 2257571, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2017); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 Amendment) (restoration of the “proportionality calculation to Rule 26(b)(1)” was not “intended to permit the opposing party to refuse discovery simply by making a boilerplate objection that it is not proportional”).
Boulais's RFP responses incorporate impermissible boilerplate “general objections,” assert without explanation additional boilerplate objections in the “specific” responses, and fail to affirmatively state whether any documents are being withheld pursuant to an objection. As such, they fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 34.
*6 As noted above, RFP No. 66 and Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 respectively seek information about Boulais's current financial condition, assets over $10,000 and liabilities over $10,000. RFP Nos. 64-65 are the counterparts to Interrogatories Nos. 1-2 and respectively seek documents disclosing Boulais's assets over $10,000 and liabilities over $10,000, without an express temporal limitation in the requests. It is largely undisputed that Boulais's financial resources are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, as well as to Plaintiffs' damages requests. Furthermore, although the Protective Order in this action (Dkt. No. 108) issued before Boulais was added as a named Defendant in the Fourth Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 130 ¶¶ 14-15), its protections plainly apply to Boulais as well and will sufficiently protect against unwarranted disclosures of his personal financial data. Accordingly, some financial disclosures are amply justified.
Boulais argues that his financial disclosures should be limited to the previous twelve months at most. Plaintiffs seek a much broader period, from 2017 to the present. Plaintiffs' request for approximately five and a half years' worth of data, starting well before CTM came into existence and Boulais began to derive any income from it, is disproportionate to the needs of this case. At the same time, Boulais's request to limit disclosure to the past twelve months, which would not require production of financial information for nearly one and a half years after this action was filed, is too restrictive. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with respect to RFP Nos. 64, 65 and 66 and Interrogatory Nos. 1-2. The Court ORDERS Boulais to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 64, 65 and 66 sufficient to show his assets over $10,000, liabilities over $10,000, and overall financial condition for the period beginning February 14, 2020, i.e., two months before the filing of this action, through September 14, 2022. Boulais may redact privileged and confidential information (such as his social security number, bank account numbers, etc.), but shall serve a privilege log of the redactions simultaneously with the production. Boulais shall also serve amended written responses to RFP Nos. 64, 65 and 66 that comply with Rule 34.
Boulais is further ORDERED to serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 for the same period, from February 14, 2020 through September 14, 2020. Because assets and liabilities typically fluctuate over time, Boulais shall provide “snapshots” of his assets and liabilities over $10,000 during this period on a quarterly basis at least.
B. RFP No. 67
1. The Disputed Request And Response
RFP No. 67: Documents sufficient to show the amount of income you have received from CTM Biomedical from June 1, 2018 to the present.
(Saba Decl., Exh. C at 6).
Response to RFP No. 67: Responding Party incorporates by this reference his General Responses and Continuing Objections set forth above. This Request is not proportional to the needs of the case and the likelihood that the documents requested will lead to admissible evidence is outweighed by the unreasonable expense and undue burden imposed on Responding Party. Additionally, this Request violates and unduly burdens the rights of privacy of Responding Party or third parties. Responding Party further objects to the extent the Request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the tax return privilege, or any other applicable privilege or protection. This Request is further vague and unduly burdensome with respect to the term “you” since the term as defined encompasses Responding Party's “agents,” “representatives,” and, ostensibly, his attorneys, and thus calls for privileged attorney-client communications, work product, and other private information not proportional to the needs of this case.
*7 Subject to and without waiving these or any continuing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: To the extent not already produced in this action, Responding Party will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this Request within his possession, custody, or control.
(Saba Decl., Exh. D at 5).
2. The Parties' Contentions
Plaintiffs contend that Boulais agreed to produce documents in response to RFP No. 67 by no later than July 8, 2022. (Jt. Stip. at 11) (citing Saba Decl., Exh. H at 16:25-17). However, despite the agreement, Plaintiffs state that Boulais has not done so. (Id. at 11-12).
Boulais states that Plaintiffs received documents sufficient to show payments he received from CTM even before he was named in the lawsuit. (Id. at 12) (citing MEDA006139-40; MEDA006259-60; MEDA006329-30; MEDA006903-04; and MEDA007717-18). However, Boulais said that he “intends to supplement” those earlier productions. (Id.).
3. Ruling
Because Boulais acknowledges Plaintiffs' right to the documents sought by RFP No. 67 and has agreed to produce them, it is not entirely clear why the parties could not iron out any logistical issues relating to the production among themselves. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED with respect to RFP No. 67. Boulais is ORDERED to produce documents in response to RFP No. 67 sufficient to show his income CTM Biomedical from June 1, 2018 to the present. Boulais may redact privileged and confidential information (such as his social security number, bank account numbers, etc.), but shall serve a privilege log of the redactions simultaneously with the production. Boulais shall also serve an amended written response to RFP No. 67 to comply with Rule 34.
VI. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Boulais is ORDERED to serve supplemental written discovery responses and documents as required by this Order no later than October 12, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
The Court will cite to Exhibits A-J attached to the Saba Declaration, which are docketed at Dkt. Nos. 163-3 to 163-12, by letter only and will follow the documents' internal pagination, not the CM/ECF-generated pagination on the Court's docket.
Specifically, Boulais's “supplemental statement” refers to Judge Frimpong's September 16, 2022 Order denying the Motion for Review, which required the parties to meet and confer before Plaintiffs may serve any discovery on third parties based on 1099 forms that Boulais received from the third parties. Boulais's 1099 forms and anticipated third-party discovery are not at issue in the instant Motion, which solely concerns Plaintiffs' requests served on Boulais for other financial information. It is therefore unclear what connection, if any, Boulais's “supplemental statement” may have to the instant Motion.
The “General Response and Continuing Objections” prefacing the specific responses assert in relevant part:
Responding Party objects to each and every Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other statutory or common law limitation on disclosure.
Responding Party objects to the time, place, and manner of production specified in the Requests. Responding Party will make his responsive documents available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient date, time, and place.
(Saba Decl., Exh. D at 1).
The response to RFP No. 65 objects to the term “liabilities in excess of $10,000” as “vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” and the response to RFP No. 66 objects to the terms “current net worth” and “financial condition” on the same grounds. (Id., Exh. D at 4). Otherwise, the responses to RFP Nos. 64, 65 and 66 are identical. (Id. at 3-4).
The “General Response and Continuing Objections” to the Interrogatory responses are identical to those asserted in the responses to the requests for production. (Saba Decl., Exh. E at 1).