Rafi Law Group PLLC v. Gil Negrete, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00778
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Rafi Law Group PLLC, No. CV-25-00778-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Gil Negrete, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Rafi Law Group PLLC (“Rafi”) and Defendant Gil 16 Negrete’s (“Negrete”) (collectively the “parties”) Notice to the Court of a Discovery 17 Dispute and Joint Written Summary of the Dispute. (Doc. 40). Having reviewed the Notice 18 and the attached documents (Doc. 42), the Court finds that Rafi’s Requests for Production 19 (“RFP” or “RFPs”) are overbroad or in the case of one RFP, ask for privileged information. 20 The Court’s reasoning is below. 21 I. Background 22 Rafi brought the current lawsuit on March 7, 2025. (Doc. 1). The Complaint is 23 based on three claims: (1) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO’); 24 (2) a claim for a pattern of unlawful activity under A.R.S. § 13-2314 et. seq.; and lastly (3) 25 tortious interference with contract and business expectancy. (Id.) Currently at the discovery 26 stage of the proceedings, the parties dispute the adequacy of Rafi’s RFPs. (Doc. 40). It is 27 Rafi’s position that asking Negrete to turn over evidence of pre-Complaint conduct is well 28 within the regular demands of the discovery process. (Id. at 2). In opposition, Negrete 1 calls the Court’s attention to the lack of particularity of the RFPs and that one of them in 2 particular collides head on with attorney-client privilege. (Id. at 3). The Complaint itself 3 references conduct from 2022 through 2024. (Doc. 1). Rafi argues that broadening this 4 timeframe is necessary, reaching all the way back to 2017, for him to make an effective 5 case for his claims. (Doc. 40 at 2). The following RFPs are in dispute: Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 6 9, 10, and 11. And the Court’s decision is below. 7 II. Legal Standard 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery 9 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and 10 proportional to the needs of the case” and that information “need not be admissible in 11 evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As long as it is acting within the 12 scope of Rule 26, a party may conduct discovery by, among other things, serving another 13 party with interrogatories, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, or by making requests for the production of 14 documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. While parties requesting discovery bear the burden of 15 showing relevance, parties resisting discovery bear the burden of showing lack of relevance 16 or undue burden. Caouette v. OfficeMax, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 134, 136 (D.N.H. 2005). At 17 no time is a generalized objection sufficient to ward off a properly made discovery request. 18 Autoridad de Carreteras y Transp. v. Transcore Atl., Inc., 319 F.R.D. 422, 427 (D.P.R. 19 2016). 20 III. Discussion 21 Below are the requests for production by Rafi, along with Negrete’s objections that 22 are at issue. 23 Rafi’s Requests for Production 24 REQUEST NO. 2: All COMMUNICATIONS involving YOU and RLG, any of its 25 employees, and/or any of its personnel (including bit not limited to RAFI and/or 26 KELHOFFER). 27 OBJECTION: Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested 28 items with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for 1 “all” communications involving Defendant and RLG, its employees and its personnel, 2 without reference to the predicate acts alleged in Counts I and II of the Complaint of the 3 acts of interference alleged in Count III of the Complaint and the time period in which 4 those acts are alleged to have occurred, is overboard, improper, and seeks irrelevant 5 information. 6 REQUEST No. 3: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS, including research, 7 date and other factual support that form the basis of any public statements, posts, or 8 communications made by YOU or on YOUR behalf about RLG and/or any of its 9 employees or personnel (including but not limited to RAFI and/or KELHOFFER). 10 OBJECTION: Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested 11 items with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for 12 “all” documents which form the basis for any public statements Defendant made about 13 RLG, its employees and its personnel, without reference to the “false and disparaging” 14 statements Defendant is alleged, in Paragraphs 21(iv), 21(v), 31, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42 and 15 66 of the Complaint, to have made, and the time period in which those statements were 16 allegedly made, is overbroad, improper, and seeks irrelevant information. 17 REQUEST No. 6: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS referencing, 18 RELATING TO or involving the foundation, formation, business operation, management, 19 actual or potential allocation of ownership, or actual or potential change in ownership of 20 GTS, JEROME GIBSON, VALLEY BOYZ, VIL, GN ENTERPRISE, and/or any other 21 business in which YOU and/or TRINA NEGRETE have an interest. 22 OBJECTIONS: 23 1. Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested items 24 with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for “all” 25 documents which relate to the foundation, formation, business operation, management, 26 actual or potential allocation of ownership, or actual or potential change in ownership of 27 GTS, Jerome Gibson, Valley Boyz, Valley Injury Lawyers, or GN Enterprise, or any other 28 business in which Defendant or his wife have an interest, when the Complaint does not 1 make any factual allegations regarding those matters, other than to allege in Paragraphs 9, 2 10, 11, 12, 13 that Defendant holds an interest in those entities and the allegation in 3 Paragraph 34 that in March 2023 Defendant made a statement about the sale of his law 4 firm, is overbroad, improper, and seeks irrelevant information. 5 2. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and 6 not proportional to the needs of the case in that Defendant would have to expend 7 considerable time and attorney’s fees to locate “all” documents relating to the “foundation 8 and formation” of Jerome Gibson, which was established in 1973 and is now known as 9 Valley Injury Lawyers; GN Enterprise, which was established in 2009; GTS, which was 10 established in 2014; and Valley Boyz, which was established in 2019, when the Complaint 11 does not contain any allegation relating to the foundation and formation of those entities. 12 3. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and 13 not proportional to the needs of the case in that Defendant would have to expend 14 considerable time and attorney’s fees to locate “all” documents relating to the “business 15 operation” and “management” of Jerome Gibson, which has been in business since 1973 16 and is now known as Valley Injury Lawyers; GN Enterprise, which began business in 2009 17 but effectively stopped operating as a business in April 2023; GTS, which began operations 18 in 2014 but is no longer doing business; and Valley Boyz, which began operations in 2019 19 but is no longer doing business, when the Complaint does not contain any allegation 20 relating to the “business operation” or “management” of those entities other than the 21 allegations in Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 29 of the Complaint that Defendant made 22 extortionate demands on Plaintiff to refer workers’ compensation cases to Jerome Gibson 23 and to refer vehicles in need of towing and storage to GTS. 24 4. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and 25 not proportional to the needs of the case in that Defendant would have to expend 26 considerable time and attorney’s fees to locate “all” documents relating to the “actual or 27 potential allocation of ownership, or actual or potential change in ownership” of Jerome 28 Gibson, which has been in business since 1973 and is now known as Valley Injury 1 Lawyers; GN Enterprise, which began business in 2009 but effectively stopped operating 2 as a business in April 2023; GTS, which began operations in 2014 but is no longer doing 3 business; and Valley Boyz, which began operations in 2019 but is no longer doing business, 4 when the Complaint does not contain any allegation relating to the ownership of those 5 entities other than, as alleged in Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, that Defendant holds an 6 interest in those entities. 7 REQUEST No. 7: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS referencing, 8 RELATING TO, or involving YOUR intentions, plans for, or actions at any location where 9 RAFI, KELHOFFER, and/or any other RLG personnel were found or expected to be found, 10 including but not limited to the locations alleged in the COMPLAINT where incidents are 11 alleged to have occurred or to have been threatened (i.e., RLG’s offices, State Farm 12 Stadium, Fogo de Chao restaurant, or the location of Mr. Kelhoffer’s planned wedding). 13 OBJECTIONS: Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the 14 requested items with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires by requesting 15 documents other than those which refer or relate to the only such “incidents” alleged in 16 Paragraphs 23, 25, and 29 of the Complaint, and is thus overbroad, improper, and seeks 17 irrelevant information. 18 Request No. 8: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS referencing, RELATING 19 TO, or involving any actions taken, planned, intended, or considered by YOU, or for or on 20 behalf of any business in which YOU are an owner, manager, employee, contractor, or 21 agent, or in which YOU and/or TRINA NEGRETE have an interest, vis a vis RLG and/or 22 any of its personnel (including but not limited to RAFI and/or KELHOFFER), including 23 but not limited to the actions referenced in the COMPLAINT. 24 OBJECTIONS: 25 1. Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested items 26 with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for “all” 27 documents which relate to “any actions” that were “taken, planned, intended, or 28 considered” by Defendant “for or on behalf of any business” in which Defendant or Trina 1 Negrete has an interest without reference to the allegations in Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 2 29 of the Complaint that Defendant made extortionate demands on Plaintiff to refer 3 workers’ compensation cases to Defendant’s law firm and to refer vehicles in need of 4 towing and storage to GTS, or the allegation in Paragraph 34 that Defendant offered made 5 a statement regarding the sale of his law firm, and the time period in which those statements 6 are alleged to have been made, is overbroad, improper, and seeks irrelevant information. 7 2. Defendant objects to the Request because it is substantially similar to Request No. 8 4 in that documents sought in Request No. 4 relating to any actual or potential 9 “relationship” between Defendant and Plaintiff would include documents relating to the 10 actions taken, planned or intended sought in this Request, and is substantially similar to 11 Request No. 6 in that documents sought in Request No. 6 relating to a change in ownership 12 would include documents relating to plans for any business in which Defendant had an 13 interest that were considered by Defendant. 14 Request No. 9: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS referencing, RELATING 15 TO, or involving any social media content, online articles, blogs, comments, songs, or other 16 internet content created, published, or caused to be published by YOU, or for or on behalf 17 of any business of which YOU are an owner, manager, employee, contractor, or agent on 18 in which YOU and/or TRINA NEGRETE have an interest, whether alone or with the 19 assistance of others, that mention or refer to RAFI, KELHOFFER, and/or RLG or any of 20 its personnel. For the avoidance of doubt, this request specifically includes, but is not 21 limited to podcasts, Instagrams “Stories,” “Posts,” “Reels,” and the analogous types of 22 content on TikTok. 23 OBJECTIONS: 24 1. Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested items 25 with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for “all” 26 documents which reference, relate to, or involve internet content Defendant created which 27 mentions or refers to Brandon Rafi, William Kelhoffer, and/or Plaintiff or any of its 28 personnel, without reference to the allegations in Paragraphs 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42 1 of the Complaint that Defendant committed extortion by making or threatening to make 2 such public statements, and the time period in which those statements were allegedly made, 3 is overbroad, improper, and seeks irrelevant information. See, e.g., Regan-Touhy v. 4 Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 649-651 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming trial court ruling that 5 similar requests were overbroad and failed to describe requested items with reasonable 6 particularity). 7 2. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and 8 not proportional to the needs of the case in that Defendant would have to expend 9 considerable time and attorney’s fees to locate and produce “all” documents which refer to 10 the internet content referenced in Paragraphs 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42 of the Complaint 11 but do not involve communications with Plaintiff regarding that content which Plaintiff 12 alleges were extortionate. 13 3. Defendant objects to the Request because it is duplicative of Request 2, which called 14 for the production of documents relating to any communications between Defendant and 15 Plaintiff. See Fed.R.Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (directing courts to limit duplicative discovery); 16 Gettings v. County of Shasta, No. 2:21-cv-01139-DJC-SCR, 2025 WL 842945, at *3 (E.D. 17 Cal. March 18, 2025) (citing Rule 26(b)(1) in directing party to cooperatively seek to limit 18 duplicative requests for production). 19 Request No. 10: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS referencing, RELATING 20 TO, or involving RAFI and RLG’s lawsuit against YOU, Maricopa County Superior Court, 21 Case No. CV2024-003021, apart from public filings in that lawsuit. 22 OBJECTIONS: 23 1. Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested items 24 with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for “all” 25 documents which reference, relate to, or involve Plaintiff’s state court lawsuit, without 26 reference to the allegations in Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41 of the Complaint that during 2024 27 Defendant communicated to Plaintiff that he would cease publishing statements about 28 Plaintiff if Plaintiff would dismiss that lawsuit, and the allegation in Paragraph 45 that in 1 December 2024 Defendant communicated with William Kelhoffer regarding his role as a 2 potential witness in that lawsuit, is overbroad, improper, and seeks irrelevant information. 3 2. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and 4 not proportional to the needs of the case in that Defendant would have to expend 5 considerable time and attorney’s fees to locate and produce “all” documents which refer, 6 relate to or involve the state court lawsuit when such documents do not refer, relate to or 7 involve the allegations in Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41 of the Complaint that during 2024 8 Defendant communicated to Plaintiff that he would cease publishing statements about 9 Plaintiff if Plaintiff would dismiss that lawsuit. 10 3. Defendant objects to the Request on the grounds that, as drafted, it impermissibly 11 seeks documents reflecting communications between Defendant and his counsel which 12 refer or relate to, or involve the state court litigation, which presumably was not the 13 drafters’ intent, since such communications are protected by the attorney client privilege 14 and/or the work-product doctrine and are not discoverable, and that any request for those 15 documents and demand that they be listed in a privilege log would violate ER 3.4(d) and 16 the Creed of Professionalism. 17 4. Defendant objects to the Request because it is duplicative of Request 2, which called 18 for the production of documents relating to any communications between Defendant and 19 Plaintiff. 20 Request No. 11: All COMMUNICATIONS with SOTO and/or any third-party 21 referencing, RELATING TO, or involving this ACTION. 22 OBJECTION: Defendant objects to this Request because it fails to describe the requested 23 items with reasonable particularity, as Rule 34(b)(1)(A) requires. The blanket request for 24 “all” documents containing communications with Defendant Jesus Soto or any unidentified 25 third party which reference, relate to, or involve this lawsuit, without reference to the 26 predicate acts and alleged interference on which Plaintiff’s claims rest and the time period 27 during which those acts allegedly occurred, is overbroad, improper, and seeks irrelevant 28 information. 1 Requests for Production that the Court finds overly broad 2 The Court finds the following requests overly broad on their face: RFP No. 2, No. 3 3, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, and No. 11. Negrete’s position that the requests listed do not 4 conform to the requirements of Rule 34 is well-taken. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (b)(1)(A) 5 (requiring that the request be stated with reasonable particularity as to each item or category 6 of items). Although the test for particularity is flexible, in that it is reviewed on a case-by- 7 case basis, it does not absolve the movant of refining, identifying, and designating the 8 documents to be produced with precision. 8B Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice 9 and Procedure § 2211 (3d Ed. 2010). This is especially true when the movant, here Rafi, 10 should possess a certain degree of knowledge that he can refine and identify the documents 11 with more exactness. Id. A stated exception to this generalization that RFPs be more 12 surgical in their dictates, is when the “party seeking discovery cannot give a more particular 13 description and the party from whom discovery is sought will have no difficulty in 14 understanding what is wanted.” Id. But that is admittedly not the case here where the RFPs 15 repeatedly ask for “ALL COMMUNICATIONS” or “ALL DOCUMENTS AND 16 COMMUNICATIONS.” Given the overbroad request, Negrete’s position is that he does 17 indeed have difficulty in ascertaining what is being asked for. Given that the timeframe 18 alleged in the Complaint for the various actions is from 2022 (at the earliest) to 2024, 19 allowing discovery to reach documents as far back as 2017 as suggested by Rafi, is 20 assuredly overbroad, even with the liberal contours of the discovery rules. And while it is 21 true that to state a claim for RICO actions, a pattern of racketeering activity, defined as the 22 occurrence of two or more acts of racketeering activity within ten years of each other is 23 required, that is not enough to engage in a fishing expedition extending to the bowels of 24 2017. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5); see Brady v. Dairy Fresh Products Co., 974 F.2d 1149, 1152 25 (9th Cir.1992) (“A pattern of racketeering activity does not exist unless there is evidence 26 of two predicate acts.”). As pointed out by Negrete, extending the discovery timeframe to 27 sweep in pre-Complaint conduct, when the Complaint itself does not reference that 28 conduct, is precisely the type of discovery request that is considered overbroad. (Doc. 42- 1 1, Ex. 4, Negrete’s Response to Rafi’s Email on September 10, 2025); see also Dauska v. 2 Green Bay Packaging Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 261 (E.D. Wisc. 2013) (stating that the use of 3 omnibus terms such as ‘relating to,’ ‘pertaining to,’ or ‘concerning’ to modify a general 4 category of documents or broad range of information makes a discovery request overly 5 broad on its face). 6 The Court finds that the use of the word “ALL” and the phrase “RELATING TO” 7 to modify the already broad range of information asked for in the following RFPS makes 8 them overly broad on their face: Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11. All-encompassing and all 9 sweeping discovery requests like the ones made by Rafi, essentially amount to a fishing 10 expedition. Baird v. Leidos, Inc., No. 22CV0060-LL(RBB), 2022 WL 17824005, at *5 11 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022). Casting a wide net in the mere hopes of finding something 12 relevant is no reason to broaden the already broad scope of the discovery rules. Therefore, 13 the Court finds that the RFPs should be refined to reference the conduct described in the 14 Complaint and within the timeframe listed in the Complaint. 15 Request for Production covered by privilege 16 The Court finds that as requested, RFP 10 is asking for privileged information. The 17 attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications by a client to an attorney 18 for the purpose of securing legal advice, and communications by the attorney to the client, 19 the disclosure of which would reveal information confided by the client. Fisher v. United 20 States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976). As the request is worded, it asks for “All DOCUMENTS 21 and COMMUNICATIONS referencing, RELATING TO, or involving RAFI and RLG’s 22 lawsuit against YOU, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2024-003021, apart 23 from public filings in that lawsuit.” This request sweeps in communications between 24 Negrete and his counsel. Notwithstanding that RFP 10 is overbroad and untethered from 25 the conduct complained of in the Complaint and the corresponding timeline, it is also 26 privileged. Bronsink v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 597489, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 27 Feb. 16, 2010) (emphasizing that a bedrock principle of discovery is to protect privileged 28 communications). Absent a waiver of attorney-client privilege on Negrete’s part, Rafi is 1 || advised to refine his request for production to not ask for privileged communications. || Putting that to one side, this request, like the others in contention, is overly broad. Baird v. || Leidos, Inc., 2022 WL 17824005, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022). 4 Having reviewed the RFPs and the corresponding objections, the Court finds that 5 || the RFPs should be narrowed to include only the timeline referenced in the Complaint and || only the conduct referenced in the Complaint. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, currently || outlined and listed as in dispute in the Joint Notice to the Court (Doc. 40) shall be narrowed 10 || in accordance with the directives of this Order. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah 12|| M. Fine for all pretrial proceedings, including but not limited to resolution of Plaintiffs 13 || recently filed Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 46). 14 Dated this 31st day of December, 2025. 15 16 fe SZ V7 norable' Diang/4. Hurfetewa 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-ll-