Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

1 This motion seeks relief only against defendant

Forrest Nolin.

2 Plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion to compel

responses to Interrogatories 16-22. In the reply brief,

plaintiffs claim that Nolin did not address its motion to

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES

HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND,

et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ADVANCE BUILDING

MAINTENANCE,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-3078 CW (BZ)

ELEVENTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel

discovery.1 Plaintiffs request four forms of discovery

relief: (1) documents responsive to Request for Production Set

No. 1 (RFP 1); (2) documents responsive to Request for

Production Set No. 2 (RFP 2); (3) written responses to

Interrogatories Set No. 1; and (4) time to further depose

defendant Forrest Nolin.2

 The requested discovery concerns

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 445 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 6
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

compel regarding Interrogatories 10-15. These interrogatories

were not mentioned in the Notice of Motion, the Proposed

Order, or the Conclusion section of the Motion. Further,

plaintiffs state in their Motion that “Plaintiffs will not

move for further responses to the interrogatories.” Motion at

p. 7 n. 4. To the extent that plaintiffs still move to compel

responses to these interrogatories, that motion is DENIED.

3 This section will address the following discovery

requests: RFP 1 Nos. 1-11, RFP 2 Nos. 2-6, Interrogatories 2-

3, 5-6, and deposition questions regarding this topic. 

4 In the Opposition, Nolin also argues that the

attorney-client privilege may apply. However, no privilege

log has been produced, and Nolin has therefore waived any

claim to privilege. “The party asserting the attorney-client

privilege has the burden of proving that the privilege applies

to a given set of documents or communications.” In re Grand

Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1070 (9th Cir. 1992). See

e.g., Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 2005 WL 6377313

(N.D.Cal. Aug. 30, 3005) (finding that a six month delay in

the production of a privilege log with no factors in

mitigation constituted a waiver of privileges) citing

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 408 F.3d 1142,

1149 (9th Cir. 2005). 

2

three topics: (1) Nolin’s receipt and use of funds received

from Advance Building Maintenance (Advance); (2) the

disposition of Advance’s assets; and (3) alternative sources

of funds available to Nolin. 

Nolin’s Receipt and Use of Funds Received from

Advance3

Nolin objects to discovery falling into this category and

argues that it is irrelevant and protected by the right to

privacy.4

 The Opposition fails to address plaintiffs

relevancy arguments however. As articulated in the motion,

Judge Wilken previously held that under ERISA a plaintiff is

entitled and required to “trace” the disputed funds to be

eligible for certain relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Bd. of

Trustees for the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 445 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Northern California v. Hill, 2008 WL 5047705, *6 (N.D.Cal.

2008). Nolin’s relevancy objections are OVERRULED.

Nolin next argues that the documents and responses are

protected by the right to privacy. “The right to

informational privacy, however, ‘is not absolute . . . .’”

Crawford v. United States Trustee, 194 F.3d 954, 958-59 (9th

Cir. 1999) citing Doe v. Attorney General, 941 F.2d 780, 796

(9th Cir. 1991). “Resolution of a privacy objection . . .

requires a balancing of the need for the information sought

against the privacy right asserted.” Soto v. City of Concord,

162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D.Cal. 1995). Here, Nolin’s finances

squarely are at issue by the very nature of plaintiffs’

allegations. Without discovery, plaintiffs will be unable to

trace any of the funds that they allege were improperly taken

from Advance. The information sought may well compromise

Nolin’s right to privacy, as plaintiffs essentially seek

disclosure of all of Nolin’s expenditures for a four year

period. Nevertheless, in balancing the need with the right to

privacy, I find that the information is discoverable and that

Nolin must provide responsive documents, answers to

interrogatories, and respond to deposition questions regarding

what he did with the funds at issue in this case. Nolin’s

privacy objections are OVERRULED. Any concerns regarding

confidentiality can be addressed by the relevant provision of

the Protective Order. 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 445 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 6
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

5 This section will address the following discovery

requests: RFP 1 No. 12 and RFP 2 Nos. 10, 12-15. This

category also addresses discovery requests regarding the sale

of Advance, the reasons for placing Advance in receivership,

and documents related to the potential sale of Advance. 

Though these discovery requests are topically distinct, the

arguments supporting and opposing the motion to compel are

identical. 

6 The Court will not address defendant’s boilerplate

objections asserted in the responses to discovery requests. 

Defendant objected on the same seven grounds to nearly every

discovery request, but failed to argue nearly all of those

grounds in his opposition to this motion to compel. The Court

will only address the objections argued in this motion to

compel.

4

Disposition of Advance’s Assets5

Nolin objects to the discovery requests in this category,

claiming that he has produced all responsive documents or that

none exist.6 Opposition at 14-16. Plaintiffs have provided

no evidence other than argument that Nolin has failed to

produce a single document responsive to the requests in this

category. Nolin filed a declaration stating that he has

provided and continues to provide every responsive document in

his possession, custody, and control. Opp. Ex. 6 at 4. 

Further, plaintiffs have not made any evidentiary showing that

the documents previously produced by XL Hog or the state

receiver fail to adequately address the current disputed

discovery requests. Without actual evidence that Nolin

continues to withhold a single responsive document to these

discovery requests, the motion must be denied. Accordingly,

the motion to compel the production of documents in this

category is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 445 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 6
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

7 This section will address the following discovery

requests: RFP 2 Nos. 7-8 and Interrogatories 7-8.

8 In response to the question “but you did have other

assets, stocks, bonds, some sort of other assets that you

could have liquidated, but you chose instead to take money out

of Advance Building Maintenance?” Nolin responded, “Yes.” 

Opp. at 13.

9 Defendant did not maintain any objection on the

grounds of overbreadth, relevance, or burden to these

discovery requests.

5

Alternative Sources of Funds7

Nolin’s sole objection to the document requests and

interrogatories concerning alternative sources of funds is

that he has already provided a sufficient response during his

deposition. Nolin contends that his very brief answer during

a deposition is sufficient to moot two requests for production

and two interrogatories.8 Opposition at 13. However,

plaintiffs are entitled to not just a bottom line answer, but

some details regarding alternative sources of funds.9 

 Identification of Documents that Support the

Responses to Interrogatories 1 Through 22

Nolin objects to Interrogatory No. 23 and claims that the

response is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. 

Nolin did not however cite any supporting authority. Courts

have compelled responses to interrogatories that require the

answering party to identify documents which support an

interrogatory answer. See e.g., Martinez v. City of Fresno,

2009 WL 129946, 3 (E.D.Cal. 2009). I do not read the

interrogatory as invading the work product rule by seeking

only documents which counsel reviewed in answering each

interrogatory. Nolin’s objections are OVERRULED. If he

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 445 Filed 04/05/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

wishes, Nolin may respond to Interrogatory No. 23 with a

response pursuant to Rule 33(d). 

Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART. 

2. Defendant SHALL search for and provide responsive

documents to RFP 1 Nos. 1-11 and RFP 2 Nos. 2-8 by APRIL 30,

2010. If defendant’s search reveals no responsive documents,

he SHALL file a declaration to that effect.

2. Defendant SHALL provide responses to Interrogatories

Nos. 2-3 and 5-8 by APRIL 30, 2010. 

3. Plaintiffs are given leave to take the deposition of

Nolin for an additional 3.5 hours concerning the topics

addressed in this Order and the responsive documents produced. 

Dated: April 5, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\CA.SERVICE EMPLOYEES\DISC ORDER 11.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 445 Filed 04/05/10 Page 6 of 6