Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aiiram LLC v. KB Home

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

July 5, 2019

AIIRAM LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
KB HOME, Defendant.

          ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS RE: DKT. NO. 30

          VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This is a putative class action asserting state law claims arising out of a contractual relationship between the parties for the purchase of real property. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiffs AIIRAM LLC and Mariia Kravchuk move to compel discovery from defendant KB Home. Dkt. No. 30. KB Home opposes discovery relating to plaintiffs' class action claims as well as discovery that it says overlaps with discovery plaintiffs served in a separate state court action. Id. The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

         For the reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' motion to compel.

         I. BACKGROUND

         KB Home removed this action from state court to federal court on January 16, 2019. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs and KB Home are parties to a separate action that is currently pending in state court (“the state court action”). Dkt. No. 30 at 2.

         On April 15, 2019, the presiding judge issued a scheduling order adopting the parties' proposed schedule. Dkt. No. 19. That order advises the parties that “[d]iscovery is not stayed pending the initial case management conference and should begin immediately.” Id. at 1-2. In addition, the scheduling order sets a single deadline for the close of fact discovery. It does not distinguish between discovery relating to the class allegations and discovery related to plaintiffs' individual claims or the merits. Id. at 2. The order specifically advises the parties that “[t]he Court will also not bifurcate discovery.” Id. at 1.

         On April 24, 2019, KB Home filed a motion to stay the action or, alternatively, to strike plaintiffs' class allegations and to dismiss all claims except plaintiffs' individual claim for breach of contract. Dkt. No. 21. That motion is pending.

         Plaintiffs move to compel KB Home's responses to document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission. Dkt. No. 30 at 5. In its written responses, KB Home asserts multiple objections to each request. However, in the parties' joint submission, KB Home resists discovery based on only two of those objections:

1. Whether KB Home may refuse to provide discovery in this case on the ground that plaintiffs' requests are duplicative of discovery sought in a separate state court action; and
2. Whether KB Home may refuse to provide discovery relating to plaintiffs' class allegations.

         The Court addresses each objection separately.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiffs' Discovery Is Not Unreasonably Cumulative or Duplicative

         Plaintiffs say that KB Home has objected to all of its discovery requests on the ground that those requests are duplicative of discovery requests served on KB Home in the state court action. Plaintiffs argue that such an objection is improper, and in any event, KB Home has not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.