Opinion
No. 13-cv-8861
06-24-2016
MICHAEL NOVAK, CHRISTINA NOVAK and their daughter, T.N., Plaintiffs, v. LEVENFELD PEARLSTEIN, STATE PARKWAY CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, THE BOARD OF THE STATE PARKWAY CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, DONNA WEBER, and LIEBERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVS., INC., Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants' Second Amended Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 276] is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants shall produce the documents that they are required to produce in accordance with this Order by 7/11/16, which is 15 days from the date of this Order. A status hearing is set for 8/4/16 at 11:00 a.m. See Statement for further details.
STATEMENT
Defendants The Board of Directors of the State Parkway Condominium Association, Lieberman Management Services, Inc., and Donna Weber (collectively, "Association Defendants") have moved for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Association Defendants seek protection against written discovery served by Plaintiffs Michael Novak, Christina Novak, and T.N. (collectively, "Plaintiffs").
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery is limited to nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
To determine the scope of discovery in this case, the place to begin is with the claims now before the Court. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged claims under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), and under state law (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress). In 2014, the Court dismissed all of the state law claims and the FHA claim against Levenfeld Pearlstein. [ECF No. 99, at 21, 23, 26.] That left the FHA claims—Counts II through IV—which allege discrimination and retaliation (including coercion, harassment, and so on) by Association Defendants.
Each of the surviving FHA claims is limited in its temporal scope. Plaintiffs allege in each count that Association Defendants discriminated and retaliated against them "[f]rom at least September 4, 2007[.]" [ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 65, 76, 87.] According to paragraph 1 of the complaint, the Association Defendants have engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct "ever since . . . January 2007." Id. ¶ 1. See also id. ¶¶ 13 ("On or about January 3, 2007, [Mr. Novak] engaged in protected activity . . . ."); 44 ("Between the filing of MJN's first HUD Complaint in January 2007 and this lawsuit . . . ."). The first specific instance of discrimination or retaliation alleged in the complaint occurred in September, 2007. Id. ¶ 14. The only reference in the complaint to pre-2007 conduct has to do with two fines allegedly assessed against Plaintiffs in December, 2006. Id. ¶¶ 40, 41. Thus, the reasonable reading of the complaint that is most favorable to Plaintiffs reveals that the claims at issue in this case do not involve discrimination or retaliation that occurred before December, 2006.
The surviving FHA claims are also limited in their substantive sweep. There is one paragraph of the complaint that alleges in vague, general terms that "there were also numerous other incidents" (i.e. instances not described in the complaint) of discrimination and retaliation. Id. ¶ 44. But each count limits itself to the factual allegations in the complaint, referring three times to either "[t]he discriminatory practices described above" or "[t]he conduct described above." Id. ¶¶ 67, 68, 69, 78, 79, 80, 89, 90, 91.
The complaint is premised upon three main sets of factual allegations. First, Plaintiffs allege that Association Defendants discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs with respect to their service animal. Id. ¶¶ 15-23, 25, 28-29, 31. Plaintiffs specifically allege that Association Defendants improperly (1) prohibited Plaintiffs from brining their service animal through common areas and on the passenger elevator, (2) harassed Plaintiffs for doing so (by asking questions and threatening to discipline them), and (3) actually imposed improper discipline for doing so (mostly in the form of fines). Id. Second, Plaintiffs allege that Association Defendants retaliated against them for complaining about Association Defendants' conduct by filing a state court lawsuit that Association Defendants knew was meritless. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32-38. Third, Plaintiffs allege that Association Defendants discriminated and retaliated against them by threatening to and actually imposing improper discipline for supposed violations of the condominium association's rules regarding pets, noise, and standards of behavior. Id. ¶¶ 39-43. Plaintiffs allege that Association Defendants falsely accused them of violating the rules at least twelve times, and imposed fines without following the proper procedural requirements at least seven times (which ultimately resulted in a lien on their home). Id.
The complaint also briefly mentions several additional matters. Plaintiffs allege that, in October, 2007, they asked Association Defendants, among other things, not to take photos of T.N., and to permit Plaintiffs to email vendors and watch TV in the exercise room. Id. ¶ 27-28. Plaintiffs also allege that, when responding to these requests, Association Defendants accused them of being too noisy. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that some of the Association Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs by not allowing them to speak at certain meetings of the Board of Directors, telling them to stop emailing management, banning them from entering Defendant Weber's office unless there was an emergency, and falsely accusing them of making too many document requests. Id. ¶¶ 24, 27, 28. Plaintiffs also allege that Association Defendants improperly denied their request to have a doorman open the south perimeter gate (it is unclear whether this allegedly was discrimination, retaliation, or both). Id. ¶ 28. Finally, in their requests for relief, Plaintiffs reference: rule changes that targeted Plaintiffs (specifically those involving deliveries, and the stairwells and hallways), reconnecting the lobby channel, and providing CART services and transcripts when Plaintiffs request them. Id. ¶¶ 1, 50, pp. 22-23, 25-26, 28-29.
Plaintiffs request additional relief that does not illuminate the contours of their claims. [ECF No. 1, at pp. 22-23, 25-26, 28-29.]
These allegations define the extent of Plaintiffs' claims in this case, and, therefore, the appropriate scope of discovery. The Court now will address each of the six parts of Association Defendants' motion.
1. Contact with former counsel
Association Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have continued to contact former counsel for various defendants, who, during the lengthy duration of this litigation, have moved to new firms and no longer represent any party to this action. [ECF No. 276, at 9.] Plaintiffs respond by saying they have not contacted one particular former attorney since August 21, 2015. [ECF No. 287, at 21.] It is unclear whether Plaintiffs have continued to contact other former counsel for any defendant.
At this time, the Court finds Association Defendants' generalized allegations of annoying and harassing conduct to be insufficient to satisfy their burden under Rule 26(c). See Swoope v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 2013 WL 6331101, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2013) ("Because Gary School District carries the burden to show that the protective order is warranted and because there cannot be a blanket ban against Swoope contacting employees, Gary School District's failure to show that the specific employees that Swoope made ex parte communications with should not have been contacted is fatal to its motion."). Further, it is not clear that Association Defendants have standing to complain of Plaintiffs' conduct directed at others. Regardless. Association Defendants' request for relief concerning Plaintiffs' contact with former counsel is denied.
2. Copies of documents to which Plaintiffs have equal access or control
Association Defendants argue that they should not have to respond to certain discovery requests because Plaintiffs already possess or have equal access to the sought-after information. [ECF No. 276, at 9-10.] Association Defendants take issue with several specific requests. Request No. 28 of Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants ("First Set of Requests for Production") requests all emails between any plaintiff and any association defendant between September 4, 2007, and March 30, 2008. [ECF No. 276-1, at 18.] Request No. 30 seeks copies of any record requests submitted by any plaintiff to State Parkway for the same time period. Id. Finally, a series of requests—Request Nos. 33 through 37—asks for written correspondence between Plaintiffs and Association Defendants.
The entire premise of Association Defendants' objection to these requests is that Plaintiffs either possess these documents or have equal access to them. This is not a proper objection. That Plaintiffs may have some documents they are asking Association Defendants to produce does not excuse, on its own, Association Defendants from producing those same documents. Association Defendants do not flesh out whether their objection is based in any part on the burden of producing these documents. If the documents are organized and in a position to be produced, there may be no burden at all. Further, under certain circumstances, it may be important or material, including for evidentiary purposes, that Association Defendants possessed or produced certain documents. On the other hand, if Association Defendants previously have produced to Plaintiffs certain documents in other contexts, such as in the state court lawsuit, that may excuse them from having to do so again. Because it is not clear what Association Defendants are saying, this objection is overruled.
3. General temporal and scope limitations
Association Defendants state in general terms that they think discovery in this case should be limited in time and scope. [ECF No. 276, at 10.] With respect to time, Association Defendants state that discovery should be limited to the time period between 2008 and the filing of the complaint in this case. Id. With respect to scope, Association Defendants state that discovery should be limited to the events underlying Plaintiffs' claims, as reflected in their Complaint. Id.
As discussed above, the earliest allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint relate to events that occurred in December, 2006. Therefore, the Court finds that, as a general matter, that marks the relevant starting point for discovery in this case. Of course, some specific discovery requests may appropriately seek information predating December, 2006. The Court, however, cannot assess in the abstract such exceptions to this general timeframe.
With respect to scope, the Court agrees that Rule 26(b)(1) generally limits discovery to materials that are relevant to the claims or defenses in this case.
4. Personal financial information of individual defendants
Association Defendants argue that certain discovery requests improperly seek the personal financial information of individual defendants. [ECF No. 276, at 8-9.] Specifically, Requests No. 45, 46, and 47 from the First Set of Requests for Production seek appraisals of property owned by defendants, detailed information about defendants' bank and investment accounts (including their account numbers), and detailed information about any loans owed by defendants (again including account numbers). [ECF No. 276-1, at 19.]
None of these requests have anything to do with whether any defendant discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs in violation of the FHA. Plaintiffs only defense of these requests is that the sought-after information will be necessary because "upon information and belief State Parkway's insurer will not indemnify Association Defendants. [ECF No. 287, at 19.] This assertion is based entirely on speculation. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs were entitled to some discovery regarding certain defendant's financial condition, these requests clearly are overbroad. See Platcher v. Health Professionals, Ltd., 2007 WL 2772855, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2007) ("Plaintiff seeks extensive financial records over the past three years, including state and federal income tax returns, mortgage deeds, account statements, stocks, bonds, mutual funds and securities. Only Defendants' current assets and liabilities are relevant to the punitive damages claims against them, and the documents requested far exceed what is necessary to establish those figures."). These requests also are premature to the extent they are motivated by a concern about collection of any judgement that might be entered against any defendant in the future. Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Court that this discovery is permissible under Rule 26(b)(1). For these reasons, Association Defendants' objections are sustained.
Plaintiffs have not identified any language from the policy or any other facts that support this contention.
5. Information about non-party tenants and owners of units in the building
Association Defendants argue that certain discovery requests improperly seek information about non-party tenants who have nothing to do with this case. [ECF No. 276, at 7-8.] Because this contention involves more than a dozen discovery requests, the chart below provides a brief description of each request, the Court's ruling, and the basis for the ruling.
| discovery request is not tailored in any way to seek onlyrelevant information. | ||
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 44Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Complete copy of everytenant's move-out file | Objection sustained for the same reasons provided withrespect to Request to Produce No. 43. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 64Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All stored data aboutthe management oroperation of StateParkway | Objection sustained: overbroad.Only stored data relevant to a claim or defense in thiscase is discoverable. As with many of Plaintiffs'discovery requests, this request may seek some relevantinformation. Its scope, however, is not circumscribed toany meaningful extent to the claims raised in this case. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 57Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Any document thatrefers to any complaintabout the managementor operation of theproperty | Objection sustained: overbroad.Documents related to complaints that stem from factualsituations entirely distinct from those that underlie theclaims in in this case are not discoverable. Althoughdocuments related to some complaints may bediscoverable, this request sweeps much broader than ispermissible. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 31, 32Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All requests forinformation fromtenants other thanPlaintiffs, and allresponses to thoserequests | Objection sustained: overbroad.Not every request and response, irrespective of itsfactual genesis, is discoverable in this case. Certainrequests for information and responses to those requestsmay be relevant if they relate to similar accommodationsto those at issue in this case, the imposition of similarfines, and the other areas in which Plaintiffs allege thatthey were treated differently. But this request is not solimited. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 50Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All forms regardingrules or regulations oftenancy that any newtenant was required tosign | Objection sustained: overbroad.Forms regarding rules and regulations that have nobearing on this case are not discoverable. Only a smallhandful of State Parkway's rules and regulations arerelevant to this case. Therefore, this discovery request isoverbroad. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 54Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All eviction documents | Objection sustained: overbroad.Plaintiffs have not been evicted from theircondominium. Even if they had been, that would notmake every eviction document discoverable. Rather,such documents are only discoverable to the extent theymay have information related to a claim or defense inthis case. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 51, 52Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | A document describingthe layout/floor plan ofState Parkway, and adocument describingthe layout of thegrounds at StateParkway | Objection overruled.Some of the claims in this case relate to the use of thecommon areas, common areas, stairwell, hallways, andlobby channel. The requested documents, if they exist,could provide information relevant to these claims.Moreover, production of these documents should not beburdensome. |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 2Page 7 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Contact information forevery tenant whoowned a dog and everynon-tenant dog-ownerwho was permitted tobring his or her dog intoState Parkway | Objection sustained in part and overruled in part:overbroad.Dog owners who never brought their dog on thepassenger elevator or through common areas will nothave information relevant to this case. But tenant dogowners who did may well have discoverableinformation. To the extent possible, AssociationDefendants should identify those tenants. In all otherrespects—including with respect to non-tenant dogowners—the objection is sustained. |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 1Page 8 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Contact information foreveryone who occupieda unit in State Parkway | Objection sustained: overbroad.Although some unit owners may have informationrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case,Plaintiffs have not made any attempt to narrow theirrequest to such a subset. |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 3Page 8 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Type of unit and unitnumber for every unit inState Parkway | Objection sustained: irrelevant.Plaintiffs contend in their brief that they need thisinformation because State Parkway's managementdiscriminated against Plaintiffs because three peopleresided in their one-bedroom apartment. [ECF No. 287,at 17.] Plaintiffs believe having this information willallow them to determine how the management treatedother residents who had three people living in a one-bedroom apartment. |
| Nothing in the complaint alleges discrimination basedon the number of persons living in Plaintiffs'condominium. Therefore, this information is notrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case. | ||
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 4Page 8 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Contact information forevery agent, employee,or contractor whoworked on theoperation, maintenance,or management ofPlaintiffs' building | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.Plaintiffs want this information so that they can askemployees about Association Defendants' enforcementof condominium rules before January, 2007 (whenPlaintiffs allegedly engaged in protected activity). [ECFNo. 287, at 17.] But their request for the contactinformation of every agent, employee, and contractor,including those who do not have any information aboutrule enforcement, covers much irrelevant informationand thus is overbroad. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 5Page 8 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Contact information forevery person who hashad an ownershipinterest in Plaintiffs'building | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.This information is not relevant to the claims anddefenses in this case. |
Often, these requests were limited in their temporal scope. Because none of the Court's rulings described in this chart are based on the timeframe at issue, such limitations are not described in the chart.
Association Defendants list Request No. 43 from the First Set of Requests for Production along with this interrogatory. [ECF No. 276, at 7.] But that request does not ask for the information that they characterize it as seeking. Therefore, this pairing seems to have been made in error.
6. Financial and management information
Association Defendants argue that certain discovery requests improperly seek information relating to the finances and operation of Plaintiffs' Building. [ECF No. 276, at 7-8.] These objections will be ruled upon in the same chart format used above.
| Request to Produce orInterrogatory, and Pagein Defendants' motion | Ruling | |
|---|---|---|
| 3rd Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 2-9Page 3 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | State Parkway's AuditWorkpapers, AuditedFinancial Statements,and a ComparableAssessments Report | Objection sustained: irrelevant.There is no claim in this case that any defendantdiscriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs with respectto State Parkway's financial operation. Plaintiffs docontend that State Parkway retaliated against them byfalsely claiming they made too many requests forrecords and by not providing copies of the records. Theactual records themselves, however, are not relevant tosuch claims. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 59-61Page 4 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All evidence supportingthe allegations made inthe state court litigation | Objection sustained in part and overruled in part:overbroad, disproportionate.Association Defendants must produce documents thatsupport their state law claims in the state court action, asdiscussed in paragraphs 30 and 34 of Plaintiffs'complaint, that Plaintiffs allege was filed in retaliationfor complaints they made as people with disabilities.In light of this ruling, the Court will analyze other,overlapping discovery requests only with respect to therequested information that is not encompassed withinthe permitted scope of Request for Production Nos. 59-61. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 41-42Page 4 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All personneldocuments and everydocument that refers toall former employees'last known addresses,telephone numbers, orsocial security numbers | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.Plaintiffs state in their initial brief that they "believe"State Parkway did not discipline personnel who failed toperform for Plaintiffs, but did so if the same personnelfailed to perform for other residents. [ECF No. 287, at10.] No such claim is asserted in the complaint. Even ifthere were such an allegation, this request would still beoverbroad. |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 7Page 5 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Contact information foreveryone who was finedat any residentialproperty managed byany defendant | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.Even if Plaintiffs could discover contact information forpeople who were fined at State Parkway for supposedviolations similar to those underlying Plaintiffs' fines,this discovery request would be overbroad. The requestis not limited to State Parkway and is not limited to finessimilar to those assessed against Plaintiffs. AlthoughPlaintiffs contend Defendants may be discriminating orretaliating against other residents at other properties, thisis not a class action lawsuit, and discovery into suchmatters is disproportionate to the claims and defenses inthis case. |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 14Page 5 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Describe in detail andquantity all violationincome State Parkwaylevied for violations ofits rules and regulations | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.State Parkway's income from fines is not relevant to anyclaim or defense in this case. The details behind certainfines may be relevant to this case because Plaintiffsallege that they were subject to disparate treatment withrespect to rule and regulation violations. This discoveryrequest, however, is not tailored to target information |
| relevant to this claim. | ||
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 4Page 5 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All security videosand/or photos retrievedfrom State Parkway'ssecurity system | Objection sustained: overbroad.Plaintiffs contend that they need every video and photoever retrieved from State Parkway's security system to"determine if there is a discriminatory pattern andpractice of downloading videos and/or photos." [ECFNo. 287, at 13.] There is no claim in this case that anydefendant discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffswith respect to their use of the videos/photos. Instead,Plaintiffs are concerned that Association Defendantsselectively deleted a handful of key videos or photos.Id. at 12. The Court understands Plaintiffs' concern inthis regard, and properly tailored discovery related tothis issue may be appropriate. But that does not givePlaintiffs carte blanche to demand every video andphoto. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 12-13Page 5 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All invoices and feecharges regarding themaintenance/upgradingof State Parkway'ssecurity system and theretrieval of photos andvideos from that system | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.It is unclear exactly what Plaintiffs think thisinformation is relevant to. They seem to believe thatState Parkway may have deleted videos or photos underthe guise of upgrading its security system in late 2006.[ECF No. 287, at 13.] Regardless, they have failed toidentify any evidence to substantiate this belief orexplain the relevance of lost videos that predate thealleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct at issue inthis case. Moreover, even if the records related to the2006 upgrade were relevant, these discovery requestswould be overbroad because they seek substantiallymore documents that are unrelated to the upgrade thanare related to it. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 29Page 5 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All telephone calls,telephone messages, ornotes of telephoneconversations betweenany plaintiff and anyassociation defendant | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.There is a claim in this case that Association Defendantsretaliated against Plaintiffs by filing a frivolous statecourt action that seemingly touched on Plaintiffscommunications with Association Defendants. Asdescribed above, the Court is ordering that AssociationDefendants provide discovery related to this claim. Tothe extent this discovery request exceeds the alreadyordered discovery, it encompasses irrelevant informationand is overbroad. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 38Page 5 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All documents thatconstitute, discuss,describe, reflect, record,mention, commentupon, or otherwise referto any plaintiff | Objection sustained: overbroad.Plaintiffs assert that they "believe" these documents"will demonstrate that Association Defendants unfairlyfocused their attention on the Plaintiffs in order to find away to accuse them of rule violations." [ECF No. 287,at 15.] Documents related to fabricating rule violationsmay be relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. This discoveryrequest, however, sweeps in every document thatreferences Plaintiffs, not just those that referencePlaintiffs with respect to some rule violation. The moregeneralized notion of "focusing attention" on Plaintiffsis too untethered to a claim in this case as to establishrelevance. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 17Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsregarding the removalof the American Flag | Objection sustained: irrelevant.Plaintiffs contend in their brief that the Board ofDirectors removed an American flag flown outside StateParkway "to elicit a response from Mr. Novak." [ECFNo. 287, at 16.] This incident is not mentioned in thecomplaint and does not form the basis of a claim in thiscase. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 18Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsregarding banning unitowners and tenantsfrom going up the gatedstairs at State Parkway | Objection overruled.Plaintiffs allege that Association Defendants madediscriminatory and/or retaliatory changes to the stairwayrules. Discovery related to this claim, subject to thetime limitation previously discussed, is proper. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 16Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | List of elevatorbreakdowns at StateParkway by date, car,and whether peoplewere trapped | Objection sustained in part and overruled in part:irrelevant, overbroad.Plaintiffs allege that Association Defendants falselyaccused them of violating State Parkway's elevator ruleswith respect to pets. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim thatthey took their service animal on passenger elevatorswhen the service elevator was broken, but were then toldthey should have used the service elevator. Therefore,documents that disclose (or "list" in Plaintiffs' words)whether the service elevator was broken at a time whenPlaintiffs took the passenger elevator with their animaland subsequently were confronted by any associationdefendant is relevant to this case. The additionalinformation sought by this discovery request, though, isirrelevant. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 19Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsamong all defendantsand/or theirpredecessors regardingchanges to boardmeeting configuration,seating, adding orremoving furniture,revising seat or seats,duration and format,agenda posting, formatof open forum, scriptedvs. unscripted etc. | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.Plaintiffs' allegations of discrimination and retaliationwith respect to board meetings are relatively minimal.They have to do with whether Plaintiffs were improperlydenied the opportunity to speak and to receive CARTtranscripts. This discovery request seeks substantiallymore information about the board meetings, coveringmany matters that are entirely unrelated to a claim ordefense in this case, such as removing furniture andmoving seats. |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 20Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsbanning the practice ofsliding communicationsunder unit owners'doors | Objection sustained: irrelevant.There is no claim in this case that any defendantdiscriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs by banningthe practice of sliding communications under unitowners' doors. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 11Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsregarding theelimination of thecontracted RecordingSecretary position atState Parkway's boardand unit ownermeetings | Objection sustained: irrelevant.There is no claim in this case that any defendantdiscriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs byeliminating the Recording Secretary position. AndPlaintiffs have not explained the relevance of thisrequest to any claim or defense in this case. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 22Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsabout limiting unitowner questions orcomments during boardmeetings | Objection sustained: overbroad.Plaintiffs do allege that Association Defendants falselyaccused them of asking too many questions at boardmeetings. This discovery request, however, extends farbeyond this claim. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 26Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communications totenants and unit ownersregarding sharingelevators with othertenants and unit owners | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.Plaintiffs do allege discrimination and retaliation withrespect to their use of the elevator. Their claim,however, has to do with taking animals on the elevator,not sharing the elevator with other tenants and unitowners. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: No. 25Page 6 of Association | All communicationsregarding proposedchanges to collectionpolicies | Objection sustained: irrelevant.There is no claim in this case that any defendantdiscriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs with respect |
| Defendants' Motion | to State Parkway's collection policies. | |
| 7th Set of Requests forProduction: No. 1Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All communicationsand documents withrespect to the bed bugpolicy adopted inMarch, 2014 | Objection sustained: irrelevant.The complaint alleges that Association Defendantsretailed against Plaintiffs by changing certain rules. Thecomplaint identifies specifically what rule changes are atissue in this case (those having to do with deliveries, andstairwells and hallways). The complaint never mentionsbed bugs. Plaintiffs state in one sentence in theirresponse brief that they "presume" the new bed bugpolicy was adopted because they were the only residentswith bedbugs in March, 2014. This stray, conclusoryreference does not turn the bed bug policy into the basisof a claim at issue in this case. Therefore, informationabout the policy change is not relevant. |
|---|---|---|
| 4th Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 1-3Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All MaintenanceService Requests Formsfor maintenance workedperformed by StateParkway's maintenancestaff since January 1,2007 | Objection sustained: irrelevant, overbroad.Plaintiffs contend that they need these documentsbecause their "forthcoming amended complaint willshow . . . [they] were subject to improper maintenancecharges for wastewater backing into their unit." [ECFNo. 287, at 16.] As this contention implicitlyacknowledges, no such claim is asserted at this time inthe operative complaint. |
| 1st Set of Requests forProduction: Nos. 63-64Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | All reports and dataprepared or used by anydefendant or his/hers/itsagents regarding theoperation of StateParkway | Objection sustained: overbroad.These two discovery requests are exceedingly broad intheir scope, potentially encompassing just about everyreport and all data maintained by AssociationDefendants. Plaintiffs have not included any limits thatdirect these requests to information related to a claim ordefense in this case. Instead, it is clear that the requests'scope dramatically exceeds the matters raised in theircomplaint. |
| 4th Set of Requests forProduction: No. 4Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | General ledgers ofcharges and credits forState Parkway'sMaintenance ServiceIncome account | Objection sustained: irrelevant.There is no claim in this case that any defendantdiscriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs with respectto the financial operation of State Parkway. |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 15Page 6 of Association | All legal fees incurredby State Parkway from2001 to the present | Objection sustained: irrelevant.There is no claim in this case that any defendantdiscriminated or retaliated against Plaintiffs by paying |
| Defendants' Motion | legal fees. | |
| 1st Set ofInterrogatories: No. 16Page 6 of AssociationDefendants' Motion | Each type/category ofdocumentscreated/maintained inthe operation,maintenance, andmanagement of StateParkway | Objection sustained: overbroad.As with Request Nos. 63 and 64, Interrogatory No. 16 isincredibly broad in its sweep. The interrogatory seeksinformation related to documents, regardless of whetherthose documents have anything to do with a claim ordefense in this case. |
|---|
Often, these requests were limited in their temporal scope. Because none of the Court's rulings described in this chart are based on the timeframe at issue, such limitations are not described in the chart. --------
For these reasons, Defendants' Second Amended Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 276] is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendants shall produce the documents that they are required to produce in accordance with this Order by 7/11/16, which is 15 days from the date of this Order.
A status hearing is set for 8/4/16 at 11:00 a.m.
It is so ordered.
/s/_________
Jeffrey T. Gilbert
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: June 24, 2016