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.

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.

The Hong Kong Defendants served reasonable document requests on the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs issued written responses and objections. The Hong Kong Defendants provided clarifications and demanded supplementation of those responses. Plaintiffs ignored the demands. This Court should now compel those responses.

Plaintiffs object to this Request as overly broad in that it seeks “All statements in any form.” In addition, this Request is ambiguous because “statements” is not a defined term. 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. Plaintiffs further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks “statements” made by Defendants or nonparties, on the grounds that such statements are within the knowledge of Defendants, can be determined by referring to documents within the possession, custody and control of Defendants, and/or are within the public domain or otherwise more readily or equally available to Defendants and thus more conveniently obtained by Defendants. Plaintiffs will supplement their response to this Request after the Hong Kong Defendants clarify the term “statements.” Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these responses and objections.

Assuming “verbal” means spoken as opposed to written, “verbal” communications cannot be produced. Plaintiffs likewise do not understand the difference between “formal” and “informal” communications, or the difference between communications obtained by Plaintiffs and communications obtained by “themselves.” In addition, as Plaintiffs pointed out in their objections, many “statements” were made by Defendants, and thus are more readily available to Defendants than to Plaintiffs.

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.

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. Plaintiff further objects to this Request as an overbroad, unduly burdensome, and improper “catch-all” request. As written, the Request is nearly limitless. Plaintiffs also object to this Request to the extent it seeks documents in the possession, custody or control of one or more Defendants or that are more readily available to one or more Defendants. Subject to and without waiving its 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.

*6 They agree, for example, that if Request 13 had sought a reasonably tailored category of documents, Plaintiffs would not be able to withhold responsive documents merely because the documents would be used for impeachment. But Request 13 is not reasonably tailored, and Plaintiffs are trying to respond to an absurdly overbroad document request as reasonably as possible in accordance with the Rules. Plaintiffs should not have to read Defendants' minds and figure out which documents Defendants think are relevant.

[They] are not saying they are never going to supplement their answers to the interrogatories. To the contrary, Plaintiffs recognize that they likely will need to supplement their answers someday, but they cannot do so in the absence of Defendants' documents.

Plaintiffs are not asserting that they should not have to respond to discovery merely because Defendants have not responded to discovery. Rather, Plaintiffs' position is that they cannot respond to discovery because Defendants have sole possession, custody, or control of many of the documents that will support Plaintiffs' liability, causation, and damages theories, and have refused for years to produce those documents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs very likely are not yet aware of all (or even most) of the material factual and legal bases of their RICO claims, the Hong Kong Defendants' fraudulent transfers, or the full extent of damages caused to them by the Hong Kong Defendants. It is not possible for Plaintiffs to respond more fully to the Hong Kong Defendants' interrogatories without receiving documents from Defendants and nonparties in this and other proceedings, including ongoing judgment enforcement proceedings.

*8 This Court should deny the Hong Kong Defendants' premature and unnecessary motion to compel in its entirety, without prejudice to the Hong Kong Defendants renewing their motion if, after document production is substantially complete, witnesses have been deposed, and Plaintiffs have elaborated on their responses, Defendants believe that Plaintiffs' amended responses are deficient.