*1 Before the Court is Claimant Government of the State of Kuwait's (“Kuwait's”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production, filed on April 19, 2024 (the “Motion”), along with the Declaration of Ashley E. Smith (“Smith Decl.”) and related exhibits. (Dkt. No. 239.) On April 23, 2024, the Noval Claimants filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition” or “Oppo.”). (Dkt. No. 243.) On April 25, 2024, Kuwait filed a Reply in support of the Motion. (Dkt. No. 246.) The Court held oral argument on the Motion on April 26, 2024, and took the matter under submission. (Dkt. No. 248.)

For the reasons outlined below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Motion is the third in a trilogy of discovery motions that the Court has addressed recently in this civil forfeiture action. (See dkt. nos. 271, 279.) The instant Motion concerns Interrogatories and Requests for Production (“RFPs”) that Kuwait separately served in September 2023 on claimants: Victor Franco Noval, individually and as trustee of the Rexford Trust, 1141 Summit Drive, LLC, 8484 Wilshire Blvd, LLC, Beverly Hills Exotic Collection, LLC, Beverly Hills Real Estate Holdings, LLC, Blue Orchid Financial, LLC, and Second Capital Partners, LLC (collectively, the “Noval Claimants”). Kuwait and the Noval Claimants are competing claimants in the forfeiture action.

Given the Court's prior orders and numerous pre-motion discovery conferences, the parties are well familiar with the allegations in the Consolidated Master Verified Complaint for Forfeiture against Defendant Assets (“CMVC”). (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 271.) Therefore, the Court only summarizes those allegations necessary to resolve this discovery dispute.

Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Khaled Al-Sabah (“KAS”), along with other high ranking Kuwaiti government officials, engaged in a massive embezzlement scheme to syphon funds from Kuwait's Ministry of Defense.[1] (CMVC ¶¶ 41-72.) According to Plaintiff, KAS and his co-conspirators illegally transferred more than $100 million of embezzled Kuwaiti funds to the United States using unregistered accounts at Ahli United Bank (“AUB”). (Id. at ¶¶ 46-53, 63-78.) Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of twelve Defendant Assets, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C), including real property, luxury vehicles, and cash seized from various U.S. bank accounts. (CMVC ¶ 5.) Kuwait and Noval Claimants are competing claimants in the forfeiture action.

Kuwait brings the Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, and 37 for an order compelling each of the Noval Claimants to provide further responses to Kuwait's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9, and First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 13. (Motion at 2.)

A. Kuwait's Positions

*2 On October 29, 2023, Noval Claimants served responses and objections to Kuwait's Interrogatories and RFPs. (Motion at 2.) Claimant Kuwait argues that, despite affording each of the seven Noval Claimants additional time to respond to the discovery, Noval Claimants' responses “were deficient in every respect.” (Id. at 1.) Kuwait contends that Noval Claimants largely “copied and pasted the same generic responses to the Interrogatories” and where Noval Claimants did agree to produce responsive, non-privileged documents, “they simply referred to the approximately 200,000 pages of discovery that Plaintiff produced in the case.” (Id. at 3.) Kuwait notes that Noval Claimants produced only 76 pages of discovery on October 29, 2023. (Id.)[2] In late March 2024, “Noval Claimants produced approximately 36,000 pages of discovery, including approximately 19,000 pages from unknown custodian ‘WVM’, and approximately 15,000 pages of hard copy records on behalf of ‘all’ Noval Claimants[.]” (Id. at 3-4.) Noval Claimants represented that their productions included information responsive to Kuwait's RFP Nos. 6, 7, 8, 12 and 15, as well as earlier RFPs that Kuwait served in March 2023. (Id. (citing Smith Decl., Exs. P-T).)

Kuwait emphasizes, with respect to Interrogatory No. 1 and 2, that it deliberately served its interrogatories separately on each of the Noval Claimants in an effort to “clarify the assets in which each Noval Claimant claims an interest, and (2) understand the source of funds used to acquire each of those specific interests.” (Motion at 5.) Victor Franco Noval's response states that he holds title to certain of the Defendant Assets in his own name, but neither Victor Noval nor any other Noval Claimant identifies which assets they claim to own outright. Likewise, in response to Interrogatory No. 2, Victor Noval does not identify the source of funds used to acquire each Defendant Asset. (Id.) Kuwait states that during the meet and confer, “the Noval Claimants agreed to supplement their responses to these interrogatories to clarify which Noval Claimant is asserting interests in which Defendant Assets and the source of funds used to acquire those assets.” (Id. at 6.) But, according to Kuwait, Noval Claimants later withdrew from this agreement. (Id.) Kuwait emphasizes that Noval Claimants similarly withdrew an earlier agreement to provide substantive responses to Interrogatory No. 8 which seeks the identity and contact information for witnesses with information that may be supportive of Noval Claimants' claims or defenses in the case. (Id. at 6-7.)

Kuwait also seeks to compel Noval Claimants to provide further responses to Interrogatory No. 9 and RFP No. 13, which seek information concerning “all purchase and sale transactions” between Al-Sabah and Noval Claimants or Victorino Franco. (Id. at 7.) Kuwait objects that Noval Claimants' responses to these requests only provided information concerning transactions that involve the Defendant Assets. (Id.)

Finally, for RFP Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Kuwait argues that Noval Claimants have not produced responsive documents supporting their claims and defenses (RFP No. 3), evidencing “all communications between Al-Sabah and the Noval Claimants” (RFP No. 4) and “documents and communications that refer or relate to the Defendant Assets (RFP No. 5). Kuwait contends these materials are clearly relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case. (Id. at 9.)

B. Noval Claimants' Opposition

Noval Claimants' primary arguments in opposition to the Motion are procedural. First, Noval Claimants maintain that Kuwait has no right to seek discovery from Noval Claimants because Kuwait is not the plaintiff in the forfeiture action. (Oppo. at 1.) Second, Noval Claimants argue that the discovery Kuwait seeks is improper because “[u]nlike the Noval Claimants, ... Kuwait has not asserted any affirmative defenses to forfeitability of the defendant real properties.” (Id.) Noval Claimants also contend Kuwait's discovery requests are not relevant and there is no basis to compel further responses because “Kuwait has only pled the defense of offset, recoupment, and unjust enrichment” and “[n]one of these equitable defenses is a defense to forfeiture.” (Id. at 2.)

*3 According to Noval Claimants, Kuwait is seeking to step into an “improper role of co-plaintiff and using discovery as a weapon to harass the Noval Claimants and third-parties[.]” (Id.) Moreover, Noval Claimants argue that Kuwait is seeking “discovery in this case to aid it in its pending state court action.” (Id. at 3.)

C. The Discovery Requests and Responses at Issue

(Smith Decl, Ex. A at 2-3.)

(Id., Ex. A. at 4-5.)

(Id., Ex. A at 12.)

Interrogatory No. 9:

*5 (Id., Ex. A at 12-13.)

(Smith Decl., Ex. H at 2.)

(Id.)

(Id. at 3.)

(Id. at 7.)

*6 (Id.)

A party may obtain discovery concerning any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). When determining if the proportionality requirement has been met, courts are to consider six factors, namely, 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. Id. Relevant information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id.

If a party “fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to compel “an answer, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).

District courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). When considering a motion to compel, the Court has similarly broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallet, 296 F.3d at 751).

A. Kuwait's Discovery Requests to Noval Claimants Are Procedurally Proper

As a threshold matter, Noval Claimants' argument that Kuwait's discovery requests are “entirely improper” because Kuwait is not entitled to obtain discovery in this forfeiture action is meritless. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provide, as Kuwait points out, that a party may seek discovery from any other party in litigation. (See Motion at 1.) Furthermore, this is explicitly allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern interrogatories and requests for production of documents — the particular discovery tools at issue here:

Noval Claimants cite no authority, merely ipse dixit, in support of their assertion that Kuwait may not obtain its own discovery in this action. Equally unavailing (and unsupported) is Noval Claimants' argument that Kuwait's discovery is improper because Kuwait is asserting itself as a “co-plaintiff” in this forfeiture action.[5]

*7 Indeed, as Kuwait emphasizes, under the Federal Rules, “the State of Kuwait may seek discovery relevant to the claims or defenses of any other party.” (Motion at 1 (emphasis in original).) Thus, after carefully reviewing the moving papers and the discovery requests at issue, the Court concludes that Kuwait's discovery requests are neither improper nor abusive.

Here, the only issues for the Court to resolve regarding the disputed discovery requests are: (1) whether the discovery Kuwait seeks is relevant to any claim or defense in the action and proportionate to the needs of the case; and (2) whether Noval Claimants' objections to the discovery have merit.

B. Noval Claimants Must Further Respond to Kuwait's Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 8, and 9.

Kuwait's Interrogatory No. 1 seeks factual information supporting Noval Claimants' contention that they hold a legal interest in the Defendant Assets, while Interrogatory No. 2 asks Noval Claimants to identify the “source of funds used” to acquire their interest in the Defendant Assets. (Smith Decl., Ex. A at 1, 4.) These requests seek information central to the claims and defenses at issue in the case. To the extent the interrogatory is limited to facts concerning the Defendant Assets as alleged in the CVMC, the discovery is also proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

In response to Interrogatories No. 1 and 2, Noval Claimants repeat their assertions that Noval Claimants purchased Defendant Assets and hold clear title in their own name to the Defendant Assets except for the lis pendens recorded on those assets in this action. (Smith Decl., Ex. A at 2-5.) Kuwait argues that the responses are incomplete because they do not fully identify the source of funds used to acquire their interest in the Defendant Assets. (Motion at 6.)

Kuwait further responds that “[i]f it is Noval Claimants' position that only Kuwaiti funds were used to acquire their purported interest in the Defendant Assets, the State of Kuwait is satisfied with that response.” (Id.) If that is not Noval Claimants' position, then Kuwait urges that Noval Claimants must “promptly identify with specificity the other funding sources so the parties can conduct the appropriate-third-party discovery.” (Id.)

Noval Claimants' response to Interrogatory No. 1 states the basis on which they assert they hold clear title to the Defendant Assets. Kuwait does not specify what information is deficient in Noval Claimants' responses to Interrogatory No. 1. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 1. No further responses are required to Interrogatory No. 1.

But the Court agrees with Kuwait that further response is required to Interrogatory No. 2. The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 2, stating with specificity the source(s) of any funds used to acquire their interest in the Defendant Assets.

Interrogatory No. 8 asks Noval Claimants to provide the identity and contact information for individuals “likely to have discoverable information,” that Noval Claimants may use to support their claims or defenses but excludes information that may be used solely for impeachment. Noval Claimants object that the interrogatory is “overbroad, vague, ambiguous, compound, and requests premature expert discovery.” (Smith Decl., Ex. A at 12.) Kuwait argues that the information is discoverable because it “precisely mirrors the language of a required initial disclosure under the FRCP.” (Motion at 6.) Kuwait also notes that while in rem forfeiture actions arising from a federal statute are not subject to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)'s initial disclosure requirements, a party may still obtain this information through a properly served discovery request. (Id.)

*8 Here, the identity of individuals with discoverable information about the acquisition of the Defendant Assets and/or Noval Claimants' purported ownership interest in such assets is central to this case. Moreover, contact information for such individuals is properly discoverable. Reed v. City of Culver City, Case No CV 19-10526 JAK (RAOx), 2021 WL 4945181, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021) (“Contact information is discoverable when relevant to a party's claims.” (internal citations omitted).) Noval Claimants cite no authority to the contrary. Indeed, Kuwait represents that Noval Claimants had “agreed during the meet and confer to supplement and provide a substantive response to this interrogatory,” but later withdrew that agreement. (Motion at 7.)

Accordingly, the MOTION is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 8. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide full and complete supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 8.

Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information about “all purchase and sale transactions involving AL-SABAH to which Noval Claimants or Victorino are a party.” (Smith Decl., Ex. A at 12 (emphasis added).) Noval Claimants object that to the extent the discovery is not limited to the transactions involving only the Defendant Assets, it is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. (Oppo. at 7.) Noval Claimants also question the relevance of this discovery, stating, “this interrogatory appears to be taking discovery for the purpose of Kuwait's state court case against the Noval Claimants and Khaled Al Sabah.” (Oppo at 11.) Noval Claimants underscore that Victorino Noval is not a claimant here. (Id.)

Kuwait, however, argues that the information is “critical to understanding conversations and arrangements surrounding the transfers at issue in this case.” (Motion at 6.) Kuwait also points out that while “Victorino Noval may not be a party ... his name is littered throughout Plaintiff's complaint and he played a central role in managing the relationship with Al-Sabah.” (Motion at 6.)

Rule 26 permits a party to obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter this is relevant to any party's claim or defense. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Thus, the fact that Victorino Noval is not a party is not a basis to preclude discovery concerning his activities that may be relevant to key issues in the case. Given the numerous references to Victorino Noval in the CVMC, he is certainly an individual who may have relevant information concerning some or all of the transactions involving the Defendant Assets. Therefore, Kuwait's discovery requests concerning Victorino Noval's involvement with Al-Sabah in various transactions seeks information that is both relevant and proportionate to the case. However, to the extent Interrogatory No. 9 is not limited to transactions involving the Defendant Assets, the Court finds that Interrogatory No. 9 is overbroad.

Accordingly, the MOTION is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 9 as follows: Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 9, identifying all purchase and sale transactions of any Defendant Assets involving AL-SABAH to which Noval Claimants or Victorino are a party.

C. Kuwait's RFPs Seek Relevant and Proportionate Documents

RFP No. 3 demands all documents that Noval Claimants may use to support their claims or defenses, other than those that would used solely for impeachment. (Motion at 8.) Noval Claimants argue that the request is “incredibly broad” and seeks Noval Claimants' trial exhibits. (Oppo. at 12.) But primarily, Noval Claimants argue that because Kuwait has asserted no defenses to forfeiture, Kuwait “has no grounds to test the sufficiently of Noval Claimants' claims or defenses.” (Id.) But as discussed above, Noval Claimants' argument fails. Noval Claimants cite no authority and make no showing to suggest that the discovery sought here is irrelevant to claims or defenses at issue in the case or disproportionate.

*9 Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 3. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide supplemental responses to RFP No. 3 and produce any responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. Any documents for which any Noval Claimants assert a privilege must be identified on a privilege log. Pursuant to Rule 34, Noval Claimants' supplemental responses must state whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

RFP No. 4 asks for all communications between or among each Noval Claimant, Victorino Noval, the Noval Claimants and or Al-Sabah. (Motion at 9; Smith Decl., Ex. H.) Kuwait concedes that the request as drafted is overbroad and has agreed to limit RFP No. 4 to all communications between Al-Sabah and the Noval Claimants.” (Motion at 9.) Given the significance of the relationship between the Noval Claimants, Mr. Victorino Noval, and Al-Sabah to the alleged conspiracy that resulted in the embezzlement that is at the heart of this forfeiture action, RFP No. 4 plainly seeks information both relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case. Indeed, Noval Claimants offer no persuasive law or facts to indicate otherwise.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 4. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide supplemental responses to RFP No. 4 and produce any responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. To the extent Noval Plaintiffs contend the responsive documents are included in Plaintiff's production of documents, Noval Claimants' responses must identify the responsive documents by bates identifier. Any documents for which Noval Claimants individually or as a group assert a privilege must be identified on a privilege log. Pursuant to Rule 34, Noval Claimants must state whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

RFP No. 5 demands that the Noval Claimants produce “all documents and communications that refer or relate to the Defendant Assets.” (Smith Decl., Ex. H. at 2-3.) Noval Claimants object that the request is vastly overbroad, seeking “every document relating to or referring to any of the numerous defendant assets at any time and for any purpose or on any subject.” (Oppo. at 12.)

But as Kuwait emphasizes, Noval Claimants “have put their interest in the Defendant Assets squarely at issue by asserting that they are innocent owners of those assets.” (Motion at 10.) Thus, the Court concludes that the documents sought in RFP No. 5 are both relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case.

Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 5. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide supplemental responses to RFP No. 5 and produce any responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. To the extent Noval Plaintiffs contend the responsive documents are included in Plaintiff's production of documents, Noval Claimants' responses must identify the responsive documents by bates identifier. Any documents for which Noval Claimants individually or as a group assert a privilege must be identified on a privilege log. Pursuant to Rule 34, Noval Claimants must state whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

RFP No. 13 seeks “all documents which reflect, refer, or relate to all purchase and sale transactions involving Al-Sabah which You, Victorino, or the Noval Claimants are a party.” (Smith Decl., Ex. H at 7.) Noval Claimants object that the RFP is overly broad and “not limited to the defendant assets in this civil forfeiture action.” (Oppo. at 13.) Here too, Noval Claimants assert that the discovery appears to be “for the purpose of Kuwait's state court case against the Noval Claimants and Khaled Al-Sabah.” (Oppo. at 13.)

*10 Kuwait emphasizes that the scope of transactions should not be limited because “Al-Sabah facilitated the transfer of over $100 million of embezzled Kuwaiti funds to the Noval Claimants and his reasons for doing so pursuant to any purchase and sale transaction to which the Noval Claimants or Victorino are a party are highly relevant.” (Motion at 7.) The Court agrees with Kuwait that the information sought here, even absent limitation to the subject Defendant Assets, is highly relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case. Furthermore, Noval Claimants have not shown any undue burden, whether in time or expense, that would result from requiring Noval Claimants to produce the responsive documents.

Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP No. 13. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Noval Claimants must each provide supplemental responses to RFP No. 13 and produce any responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. To the extent Noval Plaintiffs contend the responsive documents are included in Plaintiff's production of documents, Noval Claimants' responses must identify the responsive documents by bates identifier. Any documents for which Noval Claimants assert a privilege must be identified on a privilege log. Pursuant to Rule 34, Noval Claimants must state whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

For the reasons outlined above, Kuwait's Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 8, 9 and RFP Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 13. The Motion is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.