United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFFS'
DISCOVERY REQUESTS RE: DKT. NO. 30
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies
in part plaintiffs' motion to compel.
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.
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.
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
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
2. Whether KB Home may refuse to provide discovery relating
to plaintiffs' class allegations.
Court addresses each objection separately.
Plaintiffs' Discovery Is Not Unreasonably Cumulative or
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 ...