Saniefar v. Moore ( 2019 )

2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 FATEMEH SANIEFAR, Case No. 1:17-cv-00823-LJO-BAM 4 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. AND REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 6 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES RONALD D. MOORE, et al., (ECF NO. 188, 189) 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 The Court has received and reviewed the papers filed in connection with Defendants’ request for 11 reconsideration, ECF No. 189, including the underlying order issued by the magistrate judge, ECF No. 12 188, that is the subject of the request, as well as Plaintiff’s response, ECF No. 191, and the supplemental 13 declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, ECF No. 198. In its August 15, 2019 Minute Order, ECF No. 196, the 14 Court expressed concerned that Plaintiff’s supplemental initial disclosures, ECF No. 185-3, simply has 15 listed every ADA defendant sued by Defendants, and then named those people as witnesses without 16 knowing anything else about their case(s). 17 In her supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel explains, generally, that she and co-counsel 18 are examining publicly available documents from the underlying ADA cases and determining from 19 those document reviews whether and how each underlying ADA lawsuit serves as evidence of 20 Defendants’ alleged racketeering activities: 21 The FAC details the litigation activities of Defendants in support of Plaintiff’s mail and wire fraud allegations which span from approximately 22 2009 to the present and which, as of Plaintiff’s filing of her complaint, included approximately 1,400 ADA lawsuits and several thousand 23 witnesses including ADA defendants (and their attorneys) who are potential witnesses in this matter. As a result of the breadth of Defendants’ 24 ten-year long ADA litigation activities that form the bases of the allegations in the FAC, my colleagues and I have undertaken significant 25 efforts in reviewing, evaluating and analyzing publicly available the purpose of reducing the potential pool of thousands of witnesses and to 2 make trial of this matter more manageable. 3 Throughout the course of preparing for, and prosecuting, this RICO action, I (and my colleagues) have downloaded several hundred ADA 4 complaints filed by Defendants, conducted a detailed review and analyzation of each complaint (and associated case and docket) and 5 prepared notes and charts for each which serve to evidence Defendants’ racketeering. I estimate that my colleagues and I have spent hundreds of 6 hours performing these tasks. Should the Court require additional details of the specifics of the work performed by counsel for Plaintiff, which I 7 believe constitute work-product, I would respectfully request such details be provided to the Court in camera. 8 ECF No. 196 at ¶¶ 6-7. 9 While the Court will take counsel, an officer of the Court, at her word that a great deal of time 10 has been spent reviewing the relationship between each underlying ADA action and the claims in this 11 case, this still does not solve the underlying problem: that stapling a phone book to the designation of 12 witnesses circumvents the right the Defendants have to discovery. The Court finds that the practical 13 effect of Plaintiff’s generic disclosure is to give no usable answer, as an in camera submission about the 14 work provided amounts to no additional information available to Defendants. 15 Notably, it is not inherently obvious how the named witnesses (defendants in underlying ADA 16 actions) will contribute evidence to support Plaintiff’s racketeering allegations, which, among other 17 things, involve allegations that Defendants: (1) based ADA lawsuits on the false allegation that Ronald 18 Moore is disabled; (2) premised standing in those lawsuits on the false allegation that Ronald Moore 19 visited the establishments in question; and (3) supplemented allegations in those lawsuits with 20 information gained through covert inspection of the premises by persons other than the named plaintiff. 21 Plaintiff’s conclusory disclosure that “the individuals listed below may be used by Plaintiff to prove 22 Defendants’ fraud in the filing and prosecution of manufactured ADA claims against California 23 businesses, business and property owners, and business and property managers,” is insufficient. Viewed 24 in the context of the entire case, more is required. Sender v. Mann, 225 F.R.D. 645, 651 (D. Colo. 2004) 25 2 particularity in the pleadings”) (internal quotation omitted); see also Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kline, 3 No. 4:10-CV-00321-RP-RAW, 2011 WL 13232555, at *2 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 21, 2011) (“A subject 4 description which says, in substance, the witnesses have knowledge of everything about the claims and 5 defenses . . . does not, in the Court’s judgment, fairly comply with the rule.”). The Court is also mindful 6 of the practical implications of such a generic disclosure: 7 Constrained by the numerical limit on depositions imposed under Rule 30(a)(2) and by proportionality factors expressly incorporated in Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 26(b)(1), opposing counsel is confronted with a real dilemma if the mere mention of an individual’s name during a deposition discharges a 9 party’s disclosure and supplementation obligations. A risk-averse party must either expend time and money taking a deposition that could prove 10 worthless, or risk surprise at trial. Cf. Sender, 225 F.R.D. at 656 (Rule 26(e) “disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to allow [the opposing 11 party] to make intelligent decisions regarding how [it] will efficiently use the limited number of depositions permitted under the Rule 16 scheduling 12 order”). 13 Poitra v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the Cty. of Denver, 311 F.R.D. 659, 667 (D. Colo. 2015). 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall supplement 15 her initial disclosures within fourteen (14) days to provide a reasonable explanation as to how the named 16 witnesses are connected to the claims in their case. The Court will not at this time dictate or attempt to 17 predict what might be “reasonable,” in light of the information in Plaintiff’s possession. However, 18 failure to respond appropriately and timely risks Plaintiff having no witnesses at all, or only those 19 witnesses for whom Plaintiff substantially responds to this requirement. This order is not intended to 20 preclude the possibility that any disclosures Plaintiff plans to make in connection with the up-coming 21 hearing on the pending discovery dispute will address (and therefore moot) the above concern. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: August 23, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25