eDiscovery Assistant

Rennenger v. Aquawood, LLC

2023 WL 7102152 (S.D. Iowa 2023)

February 10, 2023

Jackson Jr., Stephen B., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The court ruled in favor of the defendant's motion to compel supplemental response to discovery requests, ordering the plaintiffs to fully respond to requests for production of documents and interrogatories. The court emphasized the importance of timely and complete production of discovery materials and ordered the plaintiffs to supplement their responses and provide a privilege log if necessary.

Additional Decisions

DANIELLE RENNENGER, Plaintiff,
v.
AQUAWOOD, LLC; BANZAI INTERNATIONAL LTD.; CHAN MING YIU a/k/a SAMSON CHAN; CHAN SIU LUN a/k/a ALAN CHAN; DOLLAR EMPIRE LLC; BRIAN DUBINSKY; LIU YI MAN a/k/a LISA LIU; MANLEY TOY DIRECT, LLC a/k/a WORLDWIDE TOY DIRECT; MGS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; PARK LANE SOLUTIONS LTD; RICHARD TOTH; TOY NETWORK, LLC; TOY NETWORK HONG KONG; TOY QUEST LTD.; and MICHAEL WU, Defendants

CIVIL NO. 4:19-cv-00123-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00131-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00132-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00134-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00135-RGE-SBJ

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division

Filed February 10, 2023

Jackson Jr., Stephen B., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

*1 Plaintiffs Danielle Rennenger, Ammee Roush, Robin Drake, Heather Miller and Tammie Ackelson initiated these now consolidated actions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act alleging multiple defendants participated in a scheme to evade paying judgments the coworkers obtained in workplace sexual harassment lawsuits. Presently before the Court is a Motion to Compel Supplemental Response to Discovery Requests (Dkt. 280) filed by defendant Aquawood, LLC. As set forth within a supporting brief (Dkt. 280-1), Aquawood asks this Court to compel Plaintiffs to fully respond to discovery requests and produce all responsive documents. Plaintiffs filed a resistance (Dkt. 281) to which Aquawood replied (Dkt. 282).

The Court considers the motion to be fully submitted. Oral argument by counsel is not necessary. L.R. 7(c). The motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND RESPONSES AT ISSUE

In its motion, Aquawood makes a broad generalized request for this Court to “(a) overrule Plaintiffs' objections to Aquawood's Requests for Documents and Interrogatories; (b) order Plaintiffs to fully respond to Aquawood's Requests for Documents and Interrogatories; (c) order Plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Aquawood's Requests for Documents; (d) award Aquawood its fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) for bringing the motion; and (d) for other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.” Dkt. 280 p. 3. From Aquawood's perspective:

Plaintiffs hide behind general objections, evade full responses, and delay promised productions. Compounding these deficiencies, Plaintiffs remain silent (other than empty promises) despite Aquawood's repeated requests for supplementation. Plaintiffs' deficient responses should not be permitted.

Dkt. 280-1 p. 2.

Plaintiffs respond with generalized contentions that their objections to Aquawood's “wildly overbroad and harassing discovery requests are well-founded and should be sustained.” Dkt. 281 p. 1. From their perspective, “Aquawood continues to spend endless resources aggressively chasing after Plaintiffs for irrelevant and intrusive discovery rather than simply paying the judgments it owes them.” Id. Plaintiffs maintain they “have complied with the Rules by narrowing the ... requests and producing or agreeing to produce comprehensive yet reasonably circumscribed categories of documents that are actually relevant to the case.” Id. Plaintiffs indicate they “have produced many thousands of documents” in a related case in the District of Minnesota, ASI, Inc. v Aquawood LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-00763-JRT-HB, which Plaintiffs designated as their initial production in this litigation and contend are responsive to Aquawood's document requests. Id. p. 2. Plaintiffs note they are asserting the same RICO enterprise and the same judgment evasion scheme as ASI, Inc. in the Minnesota case. Id. Notwithstanding their firmly-stated objections, according to Plaintiffs, prior to the filing of Aquawood's motion, they “explained their positions, made some concessions, and stated that they might be able to reach additional compromises after further investigation into the documents.” Id. p. 4.

*2 The parties' discovery discord relates to the following requests for production of documents served by Aquawood and responses thereto by Plaintiffs:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Documents sufficient to show any corporate, business, or financial relationship between you and ASI, Inc. and/or Aviva Holdings, LLC (or any related company) since You filed any lawsuit against Defendants.

RESPONSE NO. 1: Plaintiffs object to this Request because it seeks information not relevant to any party's claims or defenses. Plaintiffs further object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All communications between you and ASI, Inc., Aviva Holdings, LLC (or any related company) relating to: (a) any of the allegations made by you in the above-captioned matter or any matter related to any Defendants in the abovecaptioned matter or any of the “SLB Companies” as that term is defined in your discovery requests; (b) any alleged judgment collection efforts; (c) legal or other expenditures relating to any “SLB Companies”; (d) Manley Toys Limited's chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings; (e) Manley Toys Limited's Hong Kong liquidation proceedings; (f) or the allegations in Amended Complaint filed in ASI, Inc. v. Aquawood, LLC, et. al, Case No. 19-cv-0763-JRT-HB, D. Minn. (2019).

RESPONSE NO. 2: Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs further object to this Request to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any party's claims or defenses. Plaintiffs further object to the term “relating to” as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs will interpret the Request as seeking documents explicitly discussing the topics listed in the sub-Requests. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state that they will produce non-privileged documents responsive to subRequests (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) that Plaintiffs are able to locate after a reasonably diligent search, if any such documents exist. With respect to sub-Request (c), Plaintiffs state that they will produce non-privileged communications between Plaintiffs and ASI, Inc. or Aviva Holdings, LLC explicitly discussing legal or other expenses Plaintiffs or Aviva incurred in connection with efforts to enforce their judgments, if any such documents exist. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Documents sufficient to show your continued ownership of the various judgments referenced in Paragraph 67 of the above-captioned matter or, alternatively, documents showing any change in ownership or assignment of these judgments.

RESPONSE NO. 3: Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs further object to this Request because it is unclear what kind of document would be “sufficient to show” Plaintiffs' “continued ownership” of their judgments. Plaintiffs refer to their response to Request No. 6. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

*3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Documents sufficient to identify all legal expenses you have incurred as a result of Defendants' alleged RICO violations, including, but not limited to, any engagement or fee agreement between you and legal counsel, or any other document regarding any other claims for damages relating to the above-captioned matter.

RESPONSE NO. 4: Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state that they will produce non-privileged documents sufficient to support their claims for recovery of legal expenses that they have incurred as a result of Defendants' RICO violations. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents regarding your judgment collection efforts, including copies of any legal filings or discovery sent relating to judgment collection efforts.

RESPONSE NO. 5: Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs further object to this Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome because it seeks “all” documents “regarding” their judgment collection efforts. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state that they will produce nonprivileged documents sufficient to show their judgment enforcement efforts that they are able to locate after a reasonably diligent search. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Documents relating to any assignments of any legal claims you may have against any of the “SLB Companies,” as you have defined that term in your Second Amended Complaint.

RESPONSE NO. 6: Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs further object to this Request to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any party's claims or defenses. There is no judgment against any Plaintiff. Nor do any of the Defendants' defenses relate to the assignment of any of Plaintiffs' “legal claims.” Any such assignment of any of Plaintiffs' “legal claims” is therefore irrelevant. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state that they are not aware of any documents responsive to this Request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Documents you allege support your claims, including, but not limited to, documents showing any payments, wire transfers, or other financial transactions relating to Defendants' alleged RICO violations.

RESPONSE NO. 7: Plaintiffs object to this Request as an overbroad, unduly burdensome, and improper “catch-all” request. As written, the Request is nearly limitless. Plaintiffs further object to this Request because many of the requested documents are in the control, possession, and/or custody of Defendants and have not been produced. Plaintiffs also object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state that they will produce all documents within their possession, custody, or control that they may use to support their claims, unless the use would be solely for impeachment. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

*4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents regarding alleged statements made by Brian Dubinsky that various Defendants would “always stay ‘one step ahead’ of their creditors” as described in paragraph 5, inter alia, of the Second Amended Complaint, including, but not limited to, any notes, memoranda, audio and/or visual recordings, and/or communications pertaining to these alleged statements.

RESPONSE NO. 8: Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent this Request seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state that they will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request that they are able to locate after a reasonably diligent search. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

Dkt. 280-2 pp. 93-98.

There is also dispute over Aquawood's Interrogatory No. 2 which stated: “Describe your alleged damages and how any or all of these damages were caused by Aquawood, LLC, or Brian Dubinsky.” Id. p. 69. Plaintiffs responded as follows:

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that because this is matter is in the early stages of discovery and discovery is ongoing, Plaintiffs may not yet be aware of the full extent of the damages caused to it by Aquawood or Brian Dubinsky. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Plaintiffs state they have been damaged by Defendants preventing the enforcement of the judgments Plaintiffs obtained in Iowa state and federal court, as described in the Amended Complaint. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiffs further directs Aquawood to the allegations in the Request for Relief of the Amended Complaint, and Section III of Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures.

Id. p. 105.

Before addressing the issues raised by the parties as to those discovery requests and responses, a review of well-established rules of discovery procedure is warranted.

III. APPLICABLE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedure in all civil actions before this Court, including the discovery process. “[M]ethods of discovery may be used in any sequence” and “discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3)(A),(B). Pursuant to Rule 26(b), and unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery in general is as follows:

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). Certain limitations on discovery, however, are required:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

*5 (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

Under Rule 33, a party may serve an interrogatory which “may relate to any matter that may by inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).

Under Rule 34, a party may serve a request to produce documents or electronically stored information within the scope of Rule 26(b) and “in the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The request “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items” being sought for inspection or production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1). For the responding party, Rule 34 provides:

For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons. The responding party may state that it will produce copies of documents or of electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection. The production must then be completed no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

Pursuant to Rule 37, a party is permitted to move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery including if the opposing party fails to answer an interrogatory under Rule 33 or fails to produce documents under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii),(iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Similarly, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, “[n]o motion relating to discovery may be filed unless counsel for the moving party” attaches a declaration attesting that “[c]ounsel, in good faith, has conferred personally with counsel for the opposing party in an attempt to resolve or narrow by agreement the issues raised by the motion.” L.R. 37(a)(1). Provisions for awarding expenses depending on the circumstances and outcome of discovery motions are set forth under Rule 37(a)(5).

IV. RULING ON ISSUES RAISED BY PARTIES

*6 All rules of procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Discovery is an “investigatory tool intended to help litigants gain an understanding of the key persons, relationships, and evidence in a case.” Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919, 926 (8th Cir. 2014). “The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018). The Court has considered all arguments asserted by the parties in their submissions and the relevancy and proportionality of the discovery to the needs of the case under the asserted claims and defenses at issue in this litigation. Upon doing so, the Court reaches the following decisions on the matters raised by the parties.

First, Aquawood urges the Court to overrule Plaintiffs' generalized objections of relevance, over broad and unduly burdensome in their responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7. Dkt. 280-1 pp. 4-5. Aquawood also contends Plaintiffs may not limit their production to only documents “sufficient to show their judgment enforcement efforts” in response to Request No. 5. Id. p. 5. In its view, “Plaintiffs cannot pick and choose which documents are ‘sufficient’ [but] must produce all responsive documents.” Id. p. 6. In response, Plaintiffs indicate they “had reconsidered and agreed to produce all documents “regarding” their judgment collection efforts, as Defendants requested.” Dkt. 281 p. 5.

In the Court's opinion, to the extent not already done, Plaintiffs must produce nonprivileged documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 as written by Aquawood. The requests are within the permissible scope of Rule 26(b)(1) as to both relevancy and proportionality and in compliance with Rule 34. The objections stated by Plaintiffs are not sufficient grounds to further delay or for limiting or not producing nonprivileged responsive documents within their possession, custody, or control. As instructed by the Eighth Circuit:

A party claiming requests are unduly burdensome cannot make conclusory allegations, but must provide some evidence regarding the time or expense required. Rule 26 requires a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.

Vallejo, 903 F.3d at 743 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Com. Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (“The party resisting production bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden.”). Plaintiffs have proffered little more than stereotyped and conclusory statements to this Court. They have not sufficiently shown the requests at issue are irrelevant or unduly burdensome, let alone “wildly overbroad and harassing.”

Aquawood also complains “Plaintiffs failed to indicate whether responsive documents exist and, if so, whether any were withheld.” Dkt. 280-1 p. 6. Aquawood contends Plaintiffs' “ambiguous responses fail to meet” the requirement of Rule 34(b)(2)(C): “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Id. Aquawood further notes Plaintiffs “failed to identify documents withheld due to an alleged privilege” as required by Rule 26(b)(5). Id. p. 7. According to Aquawood, “Plaintiffs have neither produced documents nor informed Defendants of when they may do so.” Id. Aquawood asserts the Court should order Plaintiffs to supplement their responses to clearly indicate with respect to each whether they have produced or will produce all requested documents, and if not, what part of the documents have been withheld. Id. pp. 6-7. In Aquawood's view, “[t]he time for Plaintiffs' ‘reasonably diligent search’ is over.” Id. p. 7.

*7 As of the date of their response, Plaintiffs viewed the case as “still in the relatively early stages of discovery.” Dkt. 281 p. 3. Plaintiffs represented they “have been working diligently to respond to Defendants' discovery requests and supplement Plaintiffs' initial production.” Id. As explained by Plaintiffs, “[m]any of the documents are especially time-consuming to prepare for production because they are coming from the emails and other documents of Plaintiffs' attorneys.” Id. In addition, Plaintiffs complain about the production of discovery by defendants in the Minnesota case, especially as to “core documents.” Id. p. 4. “Plaintiffs agree that eventually they will have to specify whether and on what grounds they have withheld documents, and log any documents withheld as privileged.” Id. p. 6. “But [in their view] it is premature to require Plaintiffs to do so now, especially considering Defendants' massive failure to produce documents.” Id.

In reply, Aquawood asserts “Plaintiffs' open-ended deadline has no purpose other than to delay or to cover for lack of diligence, neither of which are permitted.” Dkt. 282 p. 2. Aquawood disputes Plaintiffs' contentions about its purported lack of production emphasizing “Plaintiffs have not served discovery on Defendants” in this litigation. Id. p. 3. Aquawood further disputes Plaintiffs' contention an extensive privilege review is necessary emphasizing Plaintiffs' have already had months to review and produce materials in their attorneys' possession. Id.

In the Court's opinion, and given significant time has now passed since the requests at issue were served, Plaintiffs may not further delay producing responsive documents under the assertion the discovery is premature. Nor may Plaintiffs delay responding to discovery in this litigation due to matters in the District of Minnesota case. In that regard, the Court in a prior Order (Dkt. 288) declined Plaintiffs' proposal for court-mandated coordination of discovery with the case in Minnesota. The Court noted its expectation that all counsel “confer in good faith to coordinate discovery by stipulation which benefits all parties, including as to matters within the District of Minnesota if possible and practicable.” Id. p. 8. To the extent Plaintiffs require additional information, Plaintiffs should proceed accordingly without delay especially in regard to the referenced “core documents.” Plaintiffs must not only produce responsive materials to Aquawood but also appropriately supplement their responses to the discovery requests identifying documents being produced to each request and specifying whether any responsive materials are being withheld. If any materials are withheld as privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, Plaintiffs must adhere to the requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A) by providing Aquawood with an appropriate privilege log.

Aquawood also complains, specifically in regard to Request for Production No. 2, that “Plaintiffs cannot unilaterally dictate the scope of discovery by limiting production to documents ‘explicitly’ discussing topics.” Dkt. 280-1 pp. 7-8. Aquawood argues such a “limitation would exclude directly relevant evidence well within the bounds of discovery.” Id. p. 8. In response, Plaintiffs contend it is reasonable to limit their production to nonprivileged communications “explicitly discussing their allegations against Defendants, judgment enforcement efforts, and certain other topics, if any such communications exist.” Dkt. 281 pp. 7-10. Plaintiffs assert “Defendants' further efforts to pry into the relationship between Plaintiffs and Aviva are intrusive, harassing, and have nothing to do with any party's claims or defenses.” Id. p. 8. Notwithstanding those contentions, Plaintiffs indicate they informed Aquawood prior to its motion “that Plaintiffs are still exploring what communications with Aviva exist and might be able to revise their response to remove the ‘explicitly discussing’ limitation.” Id. p. 10.

*8 In the Court's opinion, to the extent not already done, Plaintiffs must produce nonprivileged documents responsive to Request for Production No. 2 as written by Aquawood. Plaintiffs may not limit their document production by utilizing the term “explicitly.” As already determined above, the request is within the permissible scope of Rule 26(b)(1) and does not appear to be “intrusive [or] harassing.”

Turning to Request for Production No. 3, Aquawood explains it clarified for Plaintiffs “that it sought documents demonstrating Plaintiffs' ownership of the underlying judgments and ‘all documents that show any change in ownership of, or right to enforce, the judgments against the Iowa Judgment Debtors that form the basis of Plaintiffs' claims in this litigation, including partial conveyance of rights or ownership.’ ” Dkt. 280-1 p. 8. From its perspective, although the “original request was clear, its supplemental explanation removes any doubt concerning documents sought.” Id. Aquawood suspects “Plaintiffs have sold or otherwise transferred the right and ability to collect on the judgments against various judgment debtors and also may have assigned claims relating to judgment collection.” Id. p. 9. Aquawood indicates Plaintiffs failed to produce responsive documents or otherwise respond to the clarification to Request No. 3, or Request No. 6 which seeks documents relating to any assignments. Id. Aquawood maintains such materials are “directly relevant to whether the Plaintiffs are the real parties in interest in these actions.” Id.

In response, Plaintiffs indicate they “have not sold or transferred their judgments, so there are no additional documents to produce.” Dkt. 281 pp. 10-11. According to Plaintiffs, they “repeatedly have told Defendants that Plaintiffs still own their judgments and their claims against Defendants and the other SLB Companies.” Id. p. 10. Plaintiffs further indicate they “have produced or will produce documents showing that they were awarded judgments against Aquawood and other Defendants collectively totaling more than $2.4 million,” all of which “are a matter of public record.” Id. p. 11. They insist “there is nothing more for Plaintiffs to produce” and suggest Aquawood can serve an interrogatory or depose Plaintiffs to obtain a sworn statement that the judgments and claims have not been sold. Id.

In the Court's opinion, Request for Production Nos. 3 and 6 are within the permissible scope of Rule 26(b)(1) as to both relevancy and proportionality and in compliance with Rule 34. But based on Plaintiffs' representations to this Court, there is no reason to compel Plaintiffs to supplement their responses to Request for Production Nos. 3 and 6. If no responsive documents exist, then no responsive documents exist. As required by Rule 26(e), a party “must supplement or correct its” response “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Therefore, if Plaintiffs learn of the existence of responsive materials, by rule they are required to produce them to Aquawood.

In regard to Request for Production No. 7, Aquawood asserts Plaintiffs improperly transform the request “into nothing more than requiring compliance with initial disclosures” by withholding documents to be used “solely for impeachment.” Dkt. 280-1 p. 9. In Aquawood's view, Plaintiffs must produce responsive materials that support their claims including documents they may use for impeachment. Id. In response, Plaintiffs contend Request No. 7 is a vague and overbroad “catch-all” request. Dkt. 281 p. 11. In Plaintiffs' view, their response that “they will produce all documents within their possession, custody, or control that they may use to support their claims, unless the use would be solely for impeachment” is appropriate, emphasizing it is consistent with Rule 26(a)(1)'s initial disclosure provisions. Id. pp. 11-12. “Plaintiffs agree they would not be able to withhold responsive documents merely because the documents would be used for impeachment.” Id. p. 13. Plaintiffs also indicate they are not withholding any documents showing “payments, wire transfers, or other financial transactions relating to Defendants' alleged RICO violations” as sought by Request No. 7.

*9 In the Court's opinion, Plaintiffs may not withhold documents on the basis their use would be used solely for impeachment. While Rule 26(a)(1) provides for such a limitation as to initial disclosures, the scope of discovery in general under Rule 26(b)(1) does not. As determined above, Request for Production No. 7 is within the permissible scope of Rule 26(b)(1) as to both relevancy and proportionality and in compliance with Rule 34. The Court does not agree the request is unduly burdensome or “nearly limitless.” Again, Plaintiffs have proffered little more than stereotyped and conclusory statements to the Court. Thus, to the extent not already done, Plaintiffs must produce nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 7 as written by Aquawood. The objections stated by Plaintiffs are not sufficient grounds to further delay or for limiting or not producing nonprivileged responsive documents within their possession, custody, or control.

Finally, Aquawood asserts Plaintiffs must supplement their response to Interrogatory No. 2. Dkt. 280-1 pp. 10-13. From its perspective, Plaintiffs' objection to the interrogatory as being too early or premature is improper and unsupported by law. Id. Aquawood also complains Plaintiffs' references to their Request for Relief in their complaint and to their initial disclosures are inadequate because “[t]hose documents provide a high-level description of damages without specific reference to Aquawood's or Dubinsky's involvement.” Id. p. 11. Aquawood emphasizes Plaintiffs are “uniquely in control” of the necessary information and insists Plaintiffs must “fully describe the alleged damages they attribute to Aquawood and Dubinsky.” Id.

In response, Plaintiffs argue they cannot more fully answer Interrogatory No. 2 “until Defendants provide the core documents they have refused to produce.” Dkt. 281 pp. 6-7. According to Plaintiffs, they “likely are not yet aware of the full extent of damages caused to it by” defendants. Id. p. 7. From their perspective, Interrogatory No. 2 “is part of an improper effort either to re-litigate Defendants' denied motions to dismiss or prematurely to litigate summary judgment motions, before discovery is even close to finished.” Id.

In the Court's opinion, Interrogatory No. 2 is within the permissible scope of Rule 26(b)(1) as to both relevancy and proportionality and in compliance with Rule 33. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' proffered reasons for further delaying a substantive answer. Again, significant time has now passed since the interrogatory was served. And, again, Plaintiffs may not delay responding to discovery in this litigation due to matters in the District of Minnesota case. Nor may Plaintiffs arbitrarily wait until discovery is nearing completion to answer interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must fully answer Interrogatory No. 2 based on information and materials currently within their knowledge and possession. If discovery is needed Plaintiffs must proceed diligently and, as required by Rule 26(e), then supplement its answer “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

V. CONCLUSION & ORDER

As set forth above, Defendant Aquawood, LLC's Motion to Compel Supplemental Response to Discovery Requests (Dkt. 280) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs must supplement their discovery responses and produce responsive documents as directed by March 3, 2023. Under the circumstances known to the Court from the present record, an award of expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) is not warranted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.