Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-79/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’

REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY

Currently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to quash discovery requests propounded by

defendants in response to damages computations submitted by five plaintiffs, John Ikenyan, Henry

Pabulogba, Smart Iteimor, Anthony Lawuru, and Benson Edekou. Plaintiffs object that the 290 written

discovery requests propounded by defendants are overly burdensome in light of the extensive discovery

defendants have already taken of these plaintiffs regarding their damages. Defendants argue in response

that these requests are necessary to clarify and validate the damages sought by these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

have asked the Court to rule immediately because certain of plaintiffs’ counsel are currently in Nigeria

for meetings with plaintiffs.

The Court notes that in permitting defendants to take additional written discovery in response

to the computation of damages, the Court intended only to give defendants an opportunity to follow-up

on damages calculations that were being revealed for the first time. Defendants have had prior

opportunity to seek discovery regarding many of the damages stated in plaintiffs’ recent damages

computations, see, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Ninth Amended Complaint, Docket No.

1651, at 7-8, and the Court did not intend to permit defendants to conduct another round of discovery

on areas of inquiry that have already been pursued. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1696 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

to quash as to (1) all discovery requests pertaining to information that has previously been disclosed by

plaintiffs, and (2) all discovery requests pertaining to damages about which defendants have already

inquired. 

In addition, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that their damages computation need not include a

computation of attorneys’ fees and costs. Attorneys’ fees will be addressed after trial, and the case cited

by defendants, Dougal v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1720547 (N.D. Okla. June 20,

2006), is not to the contrary. The Court also agrees that it is not necessary for plaintiffs to specify their

qualifications to value property in the computation of damages, and that requests for information

regarding such information need not be answered. Finally, the Court orders defendants to avoid

requesting duplicative admissions about information already disclosed by plaintiffs or already asked

about in an interrogatory. In all other respects, defendants’ discovery requests may proceed, but the

Court notes that it expects defendants, consistent with this order, to put forth significantly fewer

discovery requests, as defendants have already inquired into many of the damages stated in plaintiffs’

damages computations. The Court also asks that, should any differences arise following this order, the

parties meet and confer in a genuine attempt to resolve such further discovery disputes before bringing

them to the attention of the Court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART plaintiffs’ motion to quash defendants’ discovery requests [Docket No. 1691]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1696 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2