I. SUMMARY

*1 On February 21-22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Records by City of Los Angeles (“Motion to Compel”) which is noticed for hearing before this Court on March 21, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.[1] Plaintiffs essentially seek an order compelling the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) to provide unredacted versions of documents which the City previously produced in response to Plaintiffs' subpoena and from which tenant names/identifying information, unit numbers, and contact information were redacted.

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds the Motion to Compel appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing on this Motion to Compel is hereby vacated and taken off calendar, and the Motion to Compel is submitted for decision.

Based upon the Court's consideration of the submissions made in connection with the Motion to Compel, the record, and the pertinent facts and law, and for the reasons explained herein, the Court grants this Motion to Compel and orders the City to produce unredacted versions of the documents called for by this Order by not later than March 27, 2023. Plaintiffs are directed forthwith to serve a copy of this Order on the City and promptly to file a proof of service demonstrating that such service has been made.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Pleadings/Deadlines

On February 1, 2022, Southern California Housing Rights Center, Inc. d/b/a Housing Rights Center (“HRC”) and 16 individual tenants filed the Complaint (alternatively, “Comp.”), alleging that ten Defendants – K3 Holdings, K3 Manager, Western 19 LLC, Oxford 19 LLC, Kenmore 20 LLC, Mariposa 20 LLC, Ave 55 19 LLC, Nathan Kadisha, Michael Kadisha and Angel Escobar engaged in discriminatory housing practices, in violation of state and federal law, by targeting for gentrification apartment buildings specifically occupied by Latinx families in the Koreatown and Highland Park neighborhoods of Los Angeles. (Docket No. 1). Defendants consist of two principals (Nathan Kadisha and Michael Kadisha), their alleged holding and management companies (K3 Holdings and K3 Manager), five individual building LLCs (the remaining entity Defendants), and one of their alleged employees/agents (Angel Escobar). (Comp. ¶¶ 21-30). The Complaint alleges that Defendants acquired several buildings, unlawfully removed Latinx families from them, renovated the buildings, and ultimately marketed the apartments to a new demographic selected by Defendants on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, familial status, age, disability, or source of income that completely excluded the former Latinx tenants. (Comp. ¶¶ 31-60). The Complaint identifies thirty older apartment buildings occupied by low-income Latinx families in Koreatown and Highland Park neighborhoods that Defendants allegedly targeted for acquisition and gentrification since 2019. (Comp. ¶ 34).

*2 Plaintiffs' first claim asserts a violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), alleging that Defendants discriminated against them, among other things, on the basis of race, color, or national origin. (Comp. ¶¶ 72-75) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a)-(e), 3617; 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.60(b)(4)-(b)(5), 100.60(b)(7), 100.65(b)(1)-(b)(2), 100.65(b)(4), 100.65(b)(7), 100.70(a)-(c)(3), 100.75(c)(1)-(c)(3), 100.80(b)(4), 100.400(c)(1)-(c)(2), 100.400(c)(6). Plaintiffs assert both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of liability. (Comp. ¶ 74) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c); 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.5, 100.7).

Plaintiffs also bring state law claims for violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (second claim) and Unruh Civil Rights Act (third claim); unlawful business practices (fourth claim); tenant harassment (fifth claim); substandard conditions (sixth claim); nuisance (seventh claim); quiet enjoyment (eighth claim); negligence (ninth claim); rent stabilization (tenth claim), unlawful rent (eleventh claim); unlawful construction (twelfth claim); unlawful buyouts (thirteenth claim); and tenant harassment (fourteenth claim). (Comp. ¶¶ 76-115) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17204-17208; Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 52(a), 52(e), 1714, 1940.2, 1940.2(b), 1941-1941.1, 1941.3-1941.5, 1942.4(b), 1942.5(h), 1947.11-1947.11(a), 3281, 3333, 3345, 3479-3481, 3491, 3493, 3501; Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12927(c)(1), 12955, 12955(a), 12955(c)-(d), 12955(f)-(h), 12955(k), 12955.6-12955.8; 12989.2; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 17920.10, 17920.3; Cal. Penal Code §§ 484, 518; 2 C.R.R. §§ 12005(1), 12010, 12040-12042, 12161(b)(1)-(b)(2), 12161(b)(5), 12161(b)(11)-(b)(12); LAMC Chap. IV, Art. 5.3; LAMC Chap. XV, Arts. 151-52; LAMC §§ 45.35, 151.10, 151,31(F), 152.07(E)). Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory, statutory and punitive damages. (Comp. §§ 116-21).

On April 8, 2022 and April 25, 2022, Defendants filed their Answers, responding to the allegations in the Complaint and asserting multiple affirmative defenses. (Docket Nos. 32, 43).

On June 7, 2022, the District Judge issued an Order Re: Jury Trial, which, among other things, set December 19, 2022 as the deadline for initial expert disclosures, January 30, 2023 as the deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures, March 13, 2023 as the non-expert discovery cut-off, and April 3, 2023 as the expert discovery cut-off. (Docket No. 53). The District Judge thereafter granted certain of the parties' stipulated requests to extend certain deadlines, ultimately extending the initial expert disclosure deadline to February 27, 2023, the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline to March 27, 2023, the non-expert discovery cut-off to March 27, 2023, and the expert discovery cut-off to April 17, 2023. (Docket Nos. 101, 103; Leggett Ex. 1).

B. Pertinent Facts Relating to Discovery Requests in Issue

On August 11, 2022, this Court entered a Protective Order governing, among other things, discovery in this action. (Docket No. 63).

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiffs served a Subpoena to Produce Documents [etc.] (“Subpoena”) upon the Custodian of Records for the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”), calling for the City/the LAHD to produce on September 19, 2022, multiple categories of documents. (Leggett Decl. ¶ 3; Leggett Ex. 1). Neither the City nor Defendants objected to the Subpoena. (Leggett Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5).

*3 Between at least September 27, 2022 and October 13, 2022, Plaintiffs' counsel and representatives of the City conferred regarding the City's response to the Subpoena and the City representatives indicated that they would produce responsive documents from wich they would redact certain information. (Leggett Decl. ¶¶ 6-10).

On October 27, 2022, in response to the Subpoena, the City produced documents from which the tenant names and contact information were redacted. (Leggett Decl. ¶ 11).

Between November 1, 2022 and January 23, 2023, Plaintiffs and the City Attorney's office met and conferred regarding the City's production in response to the Subpoena. (Leggett Decl. ¶¶ 12-18, 20-22). Plaintiffs agreed to limit their request for the production of unredacted records to those relating to 15 specified properties (the “15 Properties”). Defendants indicated that they would not oppose a motion to compel seeking such unredacted records. (Leggett Decl. ¶¶ 19, 20). The City Attorney's Office essentially took the position that, absent a court order, the City would not produce unredacted versions of the records based upon the tenant's third party privacy rights and LAHD's custom, police and practice, including California Civil Code section 1947.7(g), but that the City would comply with a court order directing it to produce unredacted versions of the documents. (Plaintiffs' Memo at 4; Leggett Decl. ¶¶ 21, 22).

The Motion to Compel – which Plaintiffs emailed to the City and personally served on LAHD's Custodian of Records on February 14, 2023 (Leggett Decl. ¶ 23) – followed. As noted above, neither Defendants nor the City have filed a response/opposition to the Motion to Compel.

III. PERTINENT LAW

Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party may serve a subpoena commanding a non-party witness to, inter alia, “produce designated documents [or] electronically stored information....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).

The scope of discovery allowed under a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26. Zucchella v. Olympusat, Inc., 2020 WL 13250450, *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020); Much v. Gessesse, 339 F.R.D. 625, 629 (C.D. Cal. 2018). Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

If a subpoena commands the inspection and copying of documents, a non-party witness may challenge the subpoena by serving on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). A non-party's failure to timely make objections to a Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum generally requires the court to find that any objections have been waived. Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citations omitted). However, in unusual circumstances and for good cause, the failure timely to act will not bar consideration of objections to a Rule 45 subpoena. Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).

*4 A party cannot object to a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party, but rather, must seek a protective order or make a motion to quash. Id. (citations omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION, FINDINGS AND ORDERS

First, as the City has not objected to the Subpoena or filed a response to the Motion to Compel, and as no Defendant has filed a motion to quash or protective order or a response to the Motion to Compel, and as no unusual circumstances or good cause have been shown, the Court finds that any objections to the Subpoena have been waived.

Second, for the reasons argued by Plaintiffs (see Plaintiffs' Memo at 4-7), the Court finds that the unredacted versions of the documents sought by the Subpoena are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

Third, the Court finds that the third party privacy rights in issue are outweighed by Plaintiffs' need for the redacted information sought and that such information can be adequately protected by the Protective Order that has been entered in this action. See A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 191 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (federal courts ordinarily recognize constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests; courts balance the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted; privacy concerns can be addressed by carefully drafted protective order).

Accordingly, fourth, the Court finds that the Motion to Compel is well-taken and grants it.

By not later than March 27, 2023, the City/LAHD shall produce to Plaintiffs unredacted versions of the documents it previously produced regarding the 15 Properties in response to the Subpoena.

All parties shall treat the aforementioned unredacted records produced as “CONFIDENTIAL Information” subject to the terms of the Protective Order entered in this action (Docket No. 63).

Plaintiffs shall forthwith serve a copy of this Order on the City/LAHD and promptly file a proof of service demonstrating that such service has been made.

IT IS SO ORDERED.