Akkawi v. Sadr ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIANA AKKAWI, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01034 MCE AC 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 KASRA SADR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to its second set of 19 requests for production. ECF No. 135. The motion was submitted without oral argument. ECF 20 No. 150. Upon full consideration of the arguments, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion. 21 I. Relevant Background 22 Plaintiffs are suing defendants alleging a conspiracy to acquire their personal and private 23 information from the Department of Motor Vehicles, asserting the following causes of action: 24 Violations of (1) Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.); (2) Cal. Veh. Code § 25 1808 et seq.; (3) Conversion; (4) Trespass to personal property; (5) Intrusion into private affairs; 26 (6) Negligence; (7) Civil conspiracy; (8) Unjust enrichment; (9) Violations of false advertising 27 law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.; (10) Violations of unfair competition law (Cal Bus. 28 & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), (11) Violation of federal right to privacy; and (12) Declaratory 1 relief. ECF No. 101 (First Amended Complaint). 2 The complaint alleges that defendants Kasra Sadr, Car Law Firm, and The Sadr Law Firm 3 (“Sadr defendants”) used plaintiffs’ information for the purpose of sending letters to them to 4 solicit representation for litigation against the sellers of the vehicles that plaintiffs purchased. 5 ECF No. 101 at 2. In these letters, defendants made allegations that the sellers of these vehicles 6 may have committed fraud on plaintiffs by selling them a vehicle which may have frame, 7 unibody, structural, or major damage, without disclosing this fact. Id. After using this 8 information to solicit legal representation, the Sadr defendants allegedly transferred plaintiffs’ 9 personal information to defendant Nationwide VIN Marketing to sell it to the public online as 10 direct marketing data. Id. Plaintiffs seek (1) an injunction protecting the public which would 11 prevent defendants from acquiring and using personal information of plaintiff and any other 12 drivers registered with the DMV without their written consent, and (2) damages and relief as 13 permitted by their causes of action. Id. at 4. 14 II. Motion to Compel Legal Standard 15 The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 26(b)(1). The current Rule states: 17 Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 18 matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 19 the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 20 the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 21 benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 22 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or 24 less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 25 determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation “has 26 been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 27 other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 28 v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Relevance, however, does not establish discoverability; in 1 2015, a proportionality requirement was added to Rule 26. Under the amended Rule 26, 2 relevance alone will not justify discovery; discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the 3 case. 4 A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 5 proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 6 of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 7 Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). General or boilerplate 8 objections, without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an 9 objection or privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 10 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). 11 III. Discussion 12 A. Plaintiff’s Motion 13 At issue are defendants’ responses to plaintiffs’ requests for production 51-62; these 14 responses were initially due in November of 2022. ECF No. 135 at 6. Following significant 15 delay and ineffective communications between the parties, the present motion to compel was filed 16 without a joint statement; defendants filed a separate opposition. ECF No. 146. In the 17 opposition, defendants demonstrate that they did (albeit belatedly) fully respond to all the 18 requests for production. ECF No. 146, Exhibits 12 and 13. Plaintiffs did not file any reply 19 briefing contending that the responses were inadequate, nor did they withdraw the motion. 20 Although defendants largely responded that after a diligent search no responsive documents 21 existed, defendants supported these responses in their briefing and plaintiffs offered no rebuttal or 22 suggestion that responsive documents do, in fact, exist. ECF No. 146 at 9-11. Because the RFPs 23 have been responded to, the motion to compel is denied. 24 B. Fees and Sanctions 25 Both parties request fees and sanctions with respect to this discovery dispute. ECF Nos. 26 135, 146. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) states that when a motion to compel is 27 denied, reasonable expenses and fees must be granted unless “the motion was substantially 28 justified, or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Here, defendants’ 1 | unreasonable delay in responding and uncooperative discovery tactics necessitated the motion. 2 || An award of fees or expenses to any party would be unjust under the circumstances of this case. 3 IV. Conclusion 4 The motion to compel, ECF No. 135, is DENIED. No fees or sanctions are ordered. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: March 9, 2023 ~ 7 AMhon—Chnne ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28