1 2 3 6 7 SHARIFA ANWARI, Case No. 22-cv-04357-AMO
8 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 119, 120, 121 Respondent. 11
12 13 Before the Court are three joint discovery letter briefs filed by the parties in this 14 international child custody case. ECF 119, 120, 121. This order assumes familiarity with the facts 15 of the case, the relevant legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties. The Court 16 resolves the parties’ discovery disputes as set forth below. 17 I. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (“RFPs”) 18 In ruling on the disputed RFPs, the Court STRIKES portions of Respondent’s discovery 19 responses that state “[s]ubject to and without waiving” objections as well as any general 20 objections because Respondent has failed to establish that such phrasing and general objections 21 are proper. See Sandigo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 17-CV-002727-BLF-NC, 2018 WL 22 4293339, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2018) (“A response with ‘[s]ubject to and without waiving 23 these objections . . . ’ can confuse or mislead the requesting party as to whether the responding 24 party has fully or only partially responded to the discovery request.”) (citations omitted); Fischer 25 v. Forrest, No. 14-CIV-1304-PAEA-JP, 2017 WL 773694, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) 26 (“incorporating all of the [g]eneral [o]bjections into each response violates Rule 34(b)(2)(B)’s 27 specificity requirement as well as Rule 34(b)(2)(C)’s requirement to indicate whether any 1 however, that “[n]otwithstanding his objections, [he has] agreed to produce the requested 2 documents.” See ECF 121 at 4. The Court construes this statement to mean that Respondent is 3 not withholding responsive documents on the basis of any general objections. He must provide 4 such confirmation to Petitioner within 5 days of this order. 5 The Court now rules on Petitioner’s request to compel compliance with the contested RFPs 6 as follows: 7 No. Request Ruling All DOCUMENTS and GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Respondent states that he 8 16 COMMUNICATIONS “will produce documents in his possession, custody or 9 RELATING TO the control that are responsive to this request, to the extent that CHILD’s living situation any such documents exist.” See ECF 122-1 at 35. 10 in Germany. Respondent’s objection to the term “living situation” as vague and ambiguous, see id., is OVERRULED. 11 All DOCUMENTS and GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Respondent states that he 17 COMMUNICATIONS “will produce documents in his possession, custody or 12 RELATING TO the control that relate to the conditions of the premises where 13 conditions of the physical the child lives or has lived, to the extent that any such address at which the documents exist.” See ECF 122-1 at 35. Respondent’s 14 CHILD lives or has lived objection to the term “conditions” as vague and ambiguous, in the United States, see id., is OVERRULED. 15 including but not limited to, all such 16 DOCUMENTS relating to 17 Momand v. Frit San Jose Town & Country Village, 18 LLC, No. 21CV382249 (Santa Clara Superior 19 Court). 20 18 DOCUMENTS sufficient DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not to show Respondent’s sufficiently briefed whether this Court can order production 21 father’s health condition of a third-party’s health information over Respondent’s from 2019 to 2022. objection that this request “seeks documents protected by 22 the privacy rights of a person not a party to these proceedings.” See ECF 122-1 at 35. The sole case – 23 Sinclair v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 20- 24 cv-02798-LHK (VKD), 2021 WL 3140883, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2021) – Petitioner relies on is inapposite, as it 25 involved personnel records of a teacher employed by the defendant school district. 26 All DOCUMENTS and GRANTED. The Respondent’s objection that “the 25 COMMUNICATIONS requested documents are equally accessible to Petitioner[,]” 27 RELATING TO any court see ECF 122-1 at 37, is OVERRULED. See Wills v. City of Respondent and Petitioner 1100036, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2024) (“Documents 1 were or are parties, being equally available to an opponent is not a blanket basis 2 including but not limited to deny production.”) (citation omitted). to, court decisions, 3 petitions, protocols, briefs, withdrawals, evidence 4 submitted, and notices of appointment, to the extent 5 not previously produced 6 by YOU. All DOCUMENTS and GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED IN PART. Respondent 28 7 COMMUNICATIONS states he “will produce documents in his possession, custody RELATING TO any or control that relate to any restraining order sought by 8 Domestic Violence Petitioner against Respondent, to the extent that any such Restraining Order (or its documents exist.” See ECF 122-1 at 38. Otherwise, the 9 equivalent) issued or request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. While 10 sought against Respondent’s sole specific objection to this request, on Respondent. relevance grounds, see id., is not likely to be sustained, 11 Petitioner must narrow the request or propose some alternative that would permit narrowing, such as a list of 12 domestic violence restraining orders issued or sought against Respondent within the last 10 years. 13 All DOCUMENTS and GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED IN PART. Respondent 30 14 COMMUNICATIONS states he “will produce documents in his possession, custody RELATING TO or control that relate to any allegations of domestic violence 15 allegations of domestic made by Petitioner against Respondent, to the extent that violence made against any such documents exist.” See ECF 122-1 at 38. 16 Respondent in any Otherwise, the request is DENIED WITHOUT 17 jurisdiction, whether PREJUDICE. While Respondent’s sole objection to this reported to government request, on relevance grounds, see id., is not likely to be 18 authorities or not. sustained, Petitioner must narrow the request or propose some alternative that would permit narrowing, such as a list 19 of allegations of domestic violence have been made against Respondent in any jurisdiction within the last 10 years, 20 whether reported to government authorities or not. 21 31 All DOCUMENTS and GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED IN PART. Respondent COMMUNICATIONS states he “will produce documents in his possession, custody 22 RELATING TO any civil or control that relate to any civil harassment case between harassment cases in which Petitioner and Respondent, to the extent that any such 23 Respondent was or is a documents exist.” See ECF 122-1 at 38. Otherwise, the party. request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. While 24 Respondent’s sole objection to this request, on relevance 25 grounds, see id., is not likely to be sustained, Petitioner must narrow the request or propose some alternative that would 26 permit narrowing, such as a list of any civil harassment cases, within the last 10 years, in which Respondent was or 27 is a party. COMMUNICATIONS sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance that would 1 RELATING TO any support granting the request as currently phrased. While 2 criminal case in which Respondent’s sole objection to this request, on relevance Respondent was or is a grounds, see ECF 122-1 at 39, is not likely to be sustained, 3 defendant. Petitioner must narrow the request or propose some alternative that would permit narrowing, such as seeking 4 production of a list of felony or violence-related criminal cases in which Respondent has been named as a defendant 5 in the last 10 years. 6 34 All GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Respondent states he “will COMMUNICATIONS by produce documents in his possession that that are responsive 7 YOU with Petitioner’s to this request, to the extent that any such documents exist.” counsel in any matter, See ECF 122-1 at 39. “Respondent[’s] object[ion] to this 8 other than Jones Day. request on the grounds that such communications are equally accessible to Petitioner in that her counsel would 9 have such communications,” see id., is OVERRULED. See 10 Wills, 2024 WL 1100036, at *6. All DOCUMENTS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Respondent states he “will 11 35 RELATING TO the produce documents in his possession that that identify those individuals identified as individuals, to the extent that any such documents exist.” 12 confessors and/or See ECF 122-1 at 39. Respondent’s objection that the witnesses to the Parties’ request is overbroad, see id., is OVERRULED. 13 marriage certificate Respondent’s objection that the request is not reasonably 14 (Respondent_0000007). calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, see id., is also OVERRULED, as that is no longer the 15 standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendments (“The former provision for discovery 16 of relevant but inadmissible information that appears 17 ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ is also deleted. The phrase has been used by 18 some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery.”). The original, unedited DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 19 58 RECORDING, including sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the audio, of the altercation at proceedings that are the subject of this request in a manner 20 issue in the Momand v. that would permit the Court to make a relevancy 21 Mahmoud[,] No. determination. However, Respondent’s objection that the 23CH011363 case in the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 22 Santa Clara County of admissible evidence, see ECF 122-1 at 67, is not well- Superior Court. taken for the same reasons stated immediately above. 23 All DOCUMENTS and DENIED. Respondent states that he “has no responsive 61 COMMUNICATIONS documents.” See ECF 122-1 at 67. However, any objection 24 RELATING TO any that “[t]hose documents, if any, would be in Petitioner’s 25 refugee facility in possession,” see id., is not well-taken. See Wills, 2024 WL Germany in which 1100036, at *6. 26 Petitioner has resided with the CHILD, including but 27 not limited to RELATING TO any 1 incident in which YOU 2 were prohibited from visiting such facility due 3 to altercations with staff members at the facility. 4 REQUEST FOR DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 62 PRODUCTION 62: All sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the 5 declarations and affidavits proceedings that are the subject of this request in a manner 6 submitted by YOU and that would permit the Court to make a relevancy RESPONDENT’s determination. However, Respondent’s objection that the 7 FAMILY MEMBERS in request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery any court action in which of admissible evidence, see ECF 122-1 at 68, is not well- 8 Respondent was or is a taken for the same reasons stated above. party, including but not 9 limited to Momand v. Frit 10 San Jose Town & Country Village, LLC, No. 11 21CV382249 (Santa Clara Superior Court) and Frit 12 San Jose Town & Country Village, LLC v. Momand, 13 No. 3:23-cv-02486-JD 14 (Northern District of California). 15 All DOCUMENTS GRANTED. The request is relevant to the child’s living 63 RELATING TO the situation. Respondent’s objection that this request is “is not 16 withholding of rent for the reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 17 premises at 367 Santana evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 68, is OVERRULED for the Heights, Unit 3019, San same reasons stated above. 18 Jose, California 95128, including but not limited 19 to the amount of rent withheld and the time 20 period for which it was 21 withheld. All DOCUMENTS GRANTED. The request is relevant to the child’s living 70 22 RELATING TO black situation. Respondent’s objection that this request is “is not mold allegedly present at reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 23 367 Santana Heights, Unit evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 69, is OVERRULED for the 3019, San Jose, California same reasons stated above. 24 95128 that YOU have 25 reviewed or created, or caused others to create, 26 including but not limited to the link to any websites, 27 unless YOU produce the All DOCUMENTS GRANTED. The request is relevant to the child’s living 1 71 RELATING TO any situation. Respondent’s objection that this request is “is not 2 FIREARMS that have reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible been in YOUR evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 69, is OVERRULED for the 3 possession, custody, or same reasons stated above. control from December 4 30, 2020 through the present, including but not 5 limited to DOCUMENTS 6 reflecting the registration of such FIREARMS with 7 any ENTITY or governmental authority. 8 All DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 72 COMMUNICATIONS sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the 9 between Respondent and subject of this request in a manner that would permit the 10 Ali Arsala. Court to make a relevancy determination. However, Respondent’s objection that the request is not reasonably 11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, see ECF 122-1 at 69, is not well-taken for the same reasons 12 stated above. All DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 13 73 COMMUNICATIONS sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the 14 between Respondent and subject of this request in a manner that would permit the Wais Ansari. Court to make a relevancy determination. However, 15 Respondent’s objection that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 16 see ECF 122-1 at 69-70, is not well-taken for the same 17 reasons stated above. All DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 74 18 COMMUNICATIONS sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the between Respondent and subject of this request in a manner that would permit the 19 Mustafa Mahmoud. Court to make a relevancy determination. However, Respondent’s objection that the request is not reasonably 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 21 see ECF 122-1 at 70, is not well-taken for the same reasons stated above. 22 Video posted on YouTube DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 75 by YOU on January 19, sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the 23 2023 regarding Mustafa subject of this request in a manner that would permit the Mahmoud’s sister, Court to make a relevancy determination. However, 24 including but not limited Respondent’s objection that the request is not reasonably 25 to the Uniform Resource calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Locator (“URL”) of the see ECF 122-1 at 70, is not well-taken for the same reasons 26 YouTube video. stated above. Should Petitioner renew this request, she shall explain why Respondent’s statement that he “did not post 27 this video and does not have a copy of it[,]” see ECF 122-1 All DOCUMENTS GRANTED. The request is relevant to the child’s home 1 76 RELATING TO the environment. Respondent’s objection that this request is 2 incident on or about “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of March 8, 2021 in which admissible evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 70, is 3 Respondent chased a OVERRULED for the same reasons stated above. vehicle that had driven 4 close to Respondent while riding a bicycle with the 5 CHILD. 6 78 For each of YOUR DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not responses to Petitioner’s provided grounds on which the Court may overrule 7 Requests for Admission Respondent’s objection that “the Request[s] for Admission that is not an unqualified were not timely served before the cutoff of written 8 admission, all discovery.” See ECF 122-1 at 70. Petitioner must address DOCUMENTS that whether there was a service agreement, whether under 9 support the position that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) or (F) or some 10 YOU took in YOUR other authority, and whether service was properly effected response. pursuant to any such agreement. 11 All DOCUMENTS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner has not 79 RELATING TO any visits sufficiently articulated a theory of relevance or described the 12 to mental health proceedings that are the subject of this request in a manner professionals from July 4, that would permit the Court to make a relevancy 13 2016 through the present, determination. 14 including but not limited to any records from the 15 mental health treatment that YOU sought 16 following the incident on 17 May 22, 2021 that is subject to Momand v. 18 Mahmoud, No. 23CH011363 (Santa Clara 19 Superior Court). 20 As to the above requests that the Court has granted, Respondent shall produce all non- 21 privileged documents responsive to the above requests with 7 days of this order. As to RFPs for 22 which Respondent “already promised to produce” responsive documents, which Petitioner has 23 identified as “Requests for Production Nos. 19-24, 29, 40-42, 46-47, 48-56, 59, 68,” see ECF 119 24 at 2, Respondent shall also produce all responsive non-privileged documents, or certify that he has 25 already done so, within 7 days of this order. 26 As to any request the Court has denied without prejudice, Petitioner shall make a 27 compromise proposal to Respondent within 5 days of this order. Lead trial counsel for the 1 unable to resolve their dispute during the meet and confer, within 5 days of the meeting, the 2 parties shall file a further joint letter brief, of no more than 5 pages and in the format required by 3 the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases ¶ I.2. The joint letter brief shall include a proposed 4 order, listing, in the format of the chart appearing in this order, each request at issue and leaving a 5 blank column for the Court’s ruling. In the joint letter brief, the parties must engage in a 6 meaningful analysis of the relevant proportionality factors. 7 II. INTERROGATORIES (“ROGs”) 8 The Court resolves the disputed ROGs as follows: 9 No. Request Ruling IDENTIFY the martial GRANTED IN PART. Respondent’s verified response, 10 6 status that YOU have which reads: “Respondent does not recall. However, he is 11 represented to any married to Petitioner, Sarifa Anwari[,]” see ECF 122-1 at ENTITY or government 75, is insufficient in that it fails to provide an explanation of 12 in the United States, what Respondent did to try to provide an answer. See Afghanistan, and Fosselman v. Gibbs, No. C 06-0375 PJH (PR), 2008 WL 13 Germany from 2014 745122, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2008) (“If [the defendant] through the present, has no recollection of when she learned of plaintiff’s need 14 including but not limited nor of what documents were submitted to her, she may give 15 to work places, schools, that as the answer, but only after attempting to discover the recreational organizations, answers and with an explanation of what she did to try to 16 health providers, insurers, provide an answer.”). and federal or state 17 governmental entities. IDENTIFY all GRANTED. The request seeks information relevant to the 18 7 FIREARMS that have child’s living environment. Respondent’s objections that the 19 been in YOUR interrogatory violates his right to privacy is OVERRULED, possession, custody, or as any privacy concerns can be addressed via a protective 20 control from December order. See Section VI. Respondent’s objection that the 2020 through the present. request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 21 of admissible evidence, see ECF 122-1 at 75, is OVERRULED for the reasons previously explained. 22 IDENTIFY the addresses GRANTED. The request seeks information relevant to the 8 23 at which all FIREARMS child’s living environment. Respondent’s objections that the in YOUR possession, interrogatory violates his right to privacy is OVERRULED, 24 custody, or control from as any privacy concerns can be addressed via a protective December 2020 through order. See Section VI. Respondent’s objection that the 25 the present have been request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 26 stored. of admissible evidence, see ECF 122-1 at 75, is OVERRULED for the reasons previously explained. 27 IDENTIFY the storage GRANTED. The request seeks information relevant to the 9 possession, custody, or as any privacy concerns can be addressed via a protective 1 control from December order. See Section VI. Respondent’s objection that the 2 2020 through the present request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery at all corresponding of admissible evidence, see ECF 122-1 at 75, is 3 addresses identified in OVERRULED for the reasons previously explained. response to [ROG] No. 8. 4 For each of YOUR DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Petitioner has 14 responses to Petitioner’s not provided grounds on which the Court may overrule 5 Requests for Admission Respondent’s objection that “the Requests for Admission 6 that is not an unqualified w[ere] not timely served before the cutoff of written admission, state each fact discovery.” Petitioner must address whether there was a 7 that YOU relied upon as a service agreement, whether under Federal Rule of Civil basis for YOUR response. Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) or (F) or some other authority, and 8 whether service was properly effected pursuant to any such agreement. 9 IDENTIFY all GRANTED IN PART. Respondent’s verified response, 15 10 INDIVIDUALS that YOU which states that he: “does not recall consulting with anyone consulted with regarding other than Petitioner[,]” see ECF 122-1 at 76, is insufficient 11 the CHILD’s December in that it fails to provide an explanation of what Respondent 30, 2020 trip to the United did to try to provide an answer. See Fosselman, 2008 WL 12 States. 745122, at *4. 13 III. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (“RFAs”) 14 The Court resolves the disputed RFAs as follows: 15 No. Request Ruling 16 13 Admit that the landlord at GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 367 Santana Heights the time covered by the request. Otherwise, DENIED 17 #3019, San Jose, CA WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing of 95128, has failed to relevance and proportionality. Respondent’s objection that 18 maintain the property in a this request “is not reasonably calculated to lead to the habitable condition since discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 19 at least 2021. at 48, is OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 20 objection that the request would lead to unwarranted annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 21 The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew v. City of Pasadena, 22 No. CV 18-0712 FMO (ASX), 2019 WL 9341338, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) (RFAs were proper under Rule 36 23 where they “d[id] not seek a response to an abstract legal 24 question” but instead “clearly related to the facts of the case . . . .”). 25 Admit that no rent was GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 26 14 owed for the premises at the time covered by the request. Otherwise, DENIED 27 367 Santana Heights WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing of #3019, San Jose, CA relevance and proportionality. Respondent’s objection that paid because the discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 1 substantial habitability at 48, is OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 2 defects negated the rent objection that the request would lead to unwarranted for each month you have annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 3 not paid, which is more The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, than 10 months, including see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 4 months in 2021, 2022 and at *3. Respondent’s objection that he cannot determine 2023. what is sought by this request because it is “uncertain, 5 ambiguous, or confusing,” see id., is OVERRULED. 6 Admit that YOU have GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 15 7 experienced physical the time covered by the request. Otherwise, DENIED discomfort including WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing of 8 “physical exhaustion, relevance and proportionality. Respondent’s objection that discomfort from odors, this request “is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 9 headaches and feeling discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 10 physical soreness” that at 49, is OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His YOU attribute to the objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 11 uninhabitability of 367 annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. Santana Heights #3019, 12 San Jose, CA 95128, including during time 13 periods when the CHILD 14 lived there. Admit that the condition GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 15 16 of the premises at 367 the time covered by the request. Otherwise, DENIED Santana Heights #3019, WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing of 16 San Jose, CA 95128 relevance and proportionality. Respondent’s objection that 17 threaten the health of the this request “is not reasonably calculated to lead to the residents of that unit discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 18 during more than 10 at 49, is OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His months including months objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 19 as early as 2021 and as annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. late as this year. The objection that this request calls for a medical 20 conclusion, see id., is OVERRULED. See Griego v. 21 Douglas, No. 17-CV-0244-KBM-JHR, 2019 WL 1505967, at *6 (D.N.M. Apr. 5, 2019) (finding a “blanket objection 22 based on lack of specialized medical knowledge . . . invalid and improper . . . .”). 23 Admit that the condition GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 17 of the premises at 367 the time covered by the request. Otherwise, DENIED 24 Santana Heights #3019, WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing of 25 San Jose, CA 95128 have relevance and proportionality. Respondent’s objection that threatened the safety of this request “is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 26 the residents of that unit discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 during more than 10 at 49, is OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 27 months during which objection that the request would lead to unwarranted reside at that address, The objection that this request calls for a medical 1 including months as early conclusion, see id., is OVERRULED. See Griego, 2019 2 as 2021 and as late as this WL 1505967, at *6. year. 3 Admit that you recognized GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 18 that the conditions at 367 the time covered by the request. Otherwise, DENIED 4 Santana Heights #3019, WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing of San Jose, Ca 95218 relevance and proportionality. Respondent’s objection that 5 “rendered it unfit for this request “is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 6 human occupancy under discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 California common law at 49, is OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 7 and statutes” as early as objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 2021, but continued to annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 8 have the CHILD live there The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, in those conditions. see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 9 at *3. 10 Admit that you GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 19 recognized, while the not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 11 CHILD has lived at 367 relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 49, is Santana Heights, #3019, OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 12 San Jose, Ca 95218 that objection that the request would lead to unwarranted the conditions there render annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 13 it “unfit for human The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 14 occupancy” include see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, “mold/mildew, water at *3. 15 leaks intrusions, deficient weatherstripping, holes in 16 wall and general 17 dilapidation and lack of maintenance.” 18 Admit that while the GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 20 CHILD has lived at 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 19 Santana Heights, #3019, relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 50, is San Jose, Ca 95218, the OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 20 defects in the premises objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 21 were severe and annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. longstanding and resulted The objection that this request calls for a legal and/or 22 in injuries to members of medical conclusion, see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, YOUR family who lived 2019 WL 9341338, at *3; Griego, 2019 WL 1505967, at *6. 23 there, including causing respiratory issues for 24 YOUR father. 25 Admit that while the GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 21 CHILD has lived at 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 26 Santana Heights, #3019, relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 50, is San Jose, Ca 95218, the OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 27 defects in the premises objection that the request would lead to unwarranted longstanding that they The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 1 constituted a nuisance in see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 2 violation of California at *3. law. 3 Admit that YOU GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 22 continued to have the not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 4 CHILD reside at 367 relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 50, is Santana Heights, #3019, OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 5 San Jose, Ca 95218, even objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 6 after experiencing a annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. pattern of harassment and The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 7 intimidation that included see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, a refusal to repair the at *3. 8 substantial habitability defects. 9 Admit that YOU GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 23 10 continued to have the not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of CHILD reside at 367 relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 50 is 11 Santana Heights, #3019, OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His San Jose, Ca 95218, objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 12 knowing that mold annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. exposure had caused The objection that this request calls for a medical 13 YOUR father who was conclusion, see id., is OVERRULED. See Griego, 2019 14 living there to suffer WL 1505967, at *6. adverse medical 15 consequences. Admit that while the GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 16 24 CHILD lived at 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 17 Santana Heights, #3019, relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 50, is San Jose, Ca 95218, OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 18 residents of that unit objection that the request would lead to unwarranted suffered “emotional annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 19 distress, discomfort and The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, annoyance, bodily injury, see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 20 pain and suffering, at *3. 21 medical expenses, loss of personal property, out-of- 22 pocket expenses and other damages” because of the 23 failure of the unit to meet the habitability standards 24 required by California 25 law. Admit that while the GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 26 25 CHILD lived at 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Santana Heights, #3019, relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 51, is 27 San Jose, Ca 95218, the OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His or his or her agent did not annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 1 regularly inspect the The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 2 premises for defects, see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, including health and at *3. 3 safety hazards and thus failed to warn and protect 4 the Unit’s residents from harm. 5 Admit that while the GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 26 6 CHILD lived at 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Santana Heights, #3019, relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 51, is 7 San Jose, CA 95218, OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His conduct was directed to its objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 8 residents of that unit that annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. was threatening and The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 9 menacing. see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 10 at *3. Respondent’s objection that he cannot determine what is sought by this request because it is “uncertain, 11 ambiguous, or confusing,” see id., is OVERRULED. Admit that the rent you GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 12 27 and your co-tenants at 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Santana Heights #3019, relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 51, is 13 San Jose, CA 95128 have OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 14 withheld is more than objection that the request would lead to unwarranted $130,000. annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 15 Admit that residing at 367 GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 28 Santana Heights #3019, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 16 San Jose, CA 95128 has relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 51, is 17 exposed the CHILD to OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His discrimination based on objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 18 his national origin and annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. race. The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 19 see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, at *3. 20 Admit that YOU did not GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 29 21 receive prior written not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of consent from Frit San Jose relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 51, is 22 Town and Country OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His Village LLC for the objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 23 CHILD and YOUR annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. parents to live at 367 The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 24 Santana Heights, Unit see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 25 3019, San Jose, California at *3. 95128, as required by 26 YOUR lease of that unit. Admit that Frit San Jose GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 27 30 Town and Country not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of consented to anyone other OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 1 than you and Ahmad objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 2 Nadiem Daniel Mohmand annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. to live at 367 Santana The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 3 Heights, Unit 3019, San see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, Jose, California 95128, at *3. 4 while YOU were an occupant there. 5 Admit that you falsely GRANTED. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 31 6 asserted diversity not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of jurisdiction in Frit San relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 51, is 7 Jose Town & Country OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His Village LLC v. Mohmand, objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 8 Case 3:23-cv-02486-JD, annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. knowing that both you as The objection that this request calls for a legal conclusion, 9 defendant and plaintiff see id., is OVERRULED. See Ballew, 2019 WL 9341338, 10 Frit San Jose Town & at *3. Country Village LLC 11 were citizens of California. 12 Admit that you were in a DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 32 multi-year dating showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 13 relationship with Ameena 14 Anwari that began before you married 15 PETITIONER in a religious ceremony and 16 that continued after YOU 17 returned to the United States following the 18 religious marriage ceremony. 19 Admit that you have been DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 33 in a multi-year dating showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 20 relationship with 21 Anastasia Guskova that began after you married 22 PETITIONER in a religious ceremony. 23 Admit that Ameena DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 39 Anwari was YOUR fiancé showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 24 after your religious 25 marriage ceremony with Sharifa. 26 Admit that YOU hit DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 40 Ameena Anwari on more showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 27 than one occasion. Ameena Anwari down a showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 1 flight of stairs. 2 42 Admit that YOU accused DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to a showing Ameena Anwari of of relevance and proportionality. 3 cheating on YOU after YOU had a religious 4 marriage to PETITIONER. 5 Admit that YOU choked DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 43 6 Ameena Anwari on more showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. than one occasion. 7 Admit that YOU DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 44 exercised extreme mental showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 8 and physical control over Ameena Anwari. 9 Admit that YOU DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 45 10 threatened Ameena showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. Anwari with retribution if 11 she revealed what YOU did to her. 12 Admit that YOU spit on DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 46 13 Ameena Anwari. showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. Admit that YOU DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 47 14 threatened to throw showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. Ameena Anwari over a 15 balcony. Admit that YOU poured DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 16 48 alcohol over Ameena showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 17 Anwari and her clothes. Admit that YOU DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 18 49 threatened to kill Ameena showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. Anwari on more than one 19 occasion. 20 50 Admit that YOU had DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient Ameena Anwari sign and showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 21 notarize a document saying that she owed 22 YOU money. Admit that YOU coerced DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 23 51 Ameena Anwari to go to showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 24 the notary by threatening her and physically 25 assaulting her. Admit that YOU told DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 26 52 Ameena Anwari that if showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. she reported YOUR abuse 27 of her, YOU would sue Admit that YOU DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 1 53 continued to call and text showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 2 Ameena Anwari after she first filed a restraining 3 order against YOU. Admit that YOU drove in DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 4 54 Ameena Anwari’s showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. neighborhood after she 5 filed a restraining order 6 against YOU at excessive speeds. 7 Admit that YOU were DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 55 arrested in Santa Clara for showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 8 violating the California Penal Code by committing 9 a battery upon Octavio 10 Castanos. Admit that YOU struck DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 11 56 Octavio Castanos in the showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. face and head. 12 Admit that YOU kicked DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 57 13 Octavio Castanos in the showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. face and head. 14 Admit that YOU were DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 58 placed on probation for showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. 15 your conduct toward Octavio Castanos. 16 Admit that YOU sent DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of a sufficient 59 17 Nadeem Fakiri pictures of showing of relevance and no showing of proportionality. his mother and threatened 18 to rape her. Admit that a gun was GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 19 60 brandished at YOU on the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT 20 May 22, 2021 in the PREJUDICE subject to a showing of relevance and parking area for 367 proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 21 Santana Heights, Unit not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 3019, San Jose, California relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 57, is 22 95128. OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 23 annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 24 61 Admit that YOU were GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at pistol whipped on May the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT 25 22, 2021 in the parking PREJUDICE subject to a showing of relevance and area for 367 Santana proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 26 Heights, Unit 3019, San not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Jose, California 95128. relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 57, is 27 OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 1 Admit that the assault on GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 62 2 YOU in the parking area the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT for 367 Santana Heights, PREJUDICE subject to a showing of relevance and 3 Unit 3019, San Jose, proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this request “is California 95128 was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 4 visible from inside 367 relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 57, is Santana Heights, Unit OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 5 3019, San Jose, California objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 6 95128. annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. Admit that the assault on GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 7 63 YOU in the parking area the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT for 367 Santana Heights, PREJUDICE subject to a showing of relevance and 8 Unit 3019, San Jose, proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this request “is California 95128 was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 9 audible from inside 367 relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 57, is 10 Santana Heights, Unit OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 3019, San Jose, California objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 11 95128. annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. Admit that YOU believed GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 12 64 YOU were going to die the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT 13 when you were attacked PREJUDICE subject to a showing of relevance and on May 22, 2021 in the proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 14 parking area for 367 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Santana Heights, Unit relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 57, is 15 3019, San Jose, California OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 95128. objection that the request would lead to unwarranted 16 annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 17 65 Admit that YOU sought a GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at Civil Harassment the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT 18 Restraining Order against PREJUDICE subject to a showing of relevance and Mustafa Mahmoud. proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this request “is 19 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 57, is 20 OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 21 objection that the request would lead to unwarranted annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 22 Admit that YOU GRANTED if the child resided at 367 Santana Heights at 66 explained to the court in the time of the incident. Otherwise, DENIED WITHOUT 23 your Civil Harassment PREJUDICE to further showing of relevance and a Restraining Order case showing of proportionality. Respondent’s objection that this 24 against Mustafa Mahmoud request “is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 25 that YOU were seeking of relevant, admissible, evidence,” see ECF 122-1 at 58, is that Restraining Order OVERRULED for reasons already explained. His 26 because YOU felt unsafe objection that the request would lead to unwarranted in your home 367 Santana annoyance or embarrassment, see id., is OVERRULED. 27 Heights, Unit 3019, San where you lived with the 1 CHILD. 2 89 Admit that YOU hit DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The redaction Redacted on more than precludes the Court from ruling on this request. The parties 3 one occasion. have not filed an administrative motion to file under seal as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5, which would have 4 included an unredacted version of the documents containing material sought to be sealed. 5 Admit that YOU hit DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The redaction 90 6 Redacted on more than precludes the Court from ruling on this request. The parties one occasion. have not filed an administrative motion to file under seal as 7 required by Civil Local Rule 79-5, which would have included an unredacted version of the documents containing 8 material sought to be sealed. 9 10 Petitioner represents that Respondent has already agreed to comply with RFA Nos. 75 and 11 84, see ECF 119 at 2. To the extent Respondent has not complied as agreed, he must do so within 12 7 days of this order. For the RFAs as to which the Court has granted Petitioner’s request to 13 compel compliance, Respondent must provide responses within 7 days of this order. For the 14 RFAs as to which the Court has denied Petitioner’s request to compel compliance without 15 prejudice, Petitioner shall make a compromise proposal to Respondent within 5 days of this 16 order. Lead trial counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in person or by videoconference 5 17 days thereafter. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute during the meet and confer, 18 within 5 days of the meeting, the parties shall file a further joint letter brief, of no more than 5 19 pages and in the format required by the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases ¶ I.2. The joint 20 letter brief shall include a proposed order, listing, in the format of the chart appearing in this order, 21 each request at issue and leaving a blank column for the Court’s ruling. In the joint letter brief, the 22 parties must engage in a meaningful analysis of the relevant proportionality factors. 24 Respondent shall serve a privilege log, containing the information required by the Court’s 25 Standing Order for Civil Cases ¶ I.5, for any documents Respondent withheld on the basis of 26 privilege within 14 days of this order. 27 /// 2 Within 5 days of this order, lead trial counsel for each party shall meet and confer in 3 person or by videoconference to reach agreement on a stipulated protective order. If the parties do 4 not reach agreement, within 7 days of this order, Petitioner shall file the model stipulated 5 protective order, modified to include case identifying information, and submit it to the Court for 6 entry in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases 7 41.4. Pending entry of the protective order, all materials produced shall be designated 8 confidential, or highly-confidential attorneys’ eyes only, as appropriate, consistent with the 9 Northern District of California model order. ll Dated: June 11, 2024
: ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 5 14 United States District Judge 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28