Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00475/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00475-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL ZANG, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UMAMI SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD, 

INC., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

(ECF No. 36) 

On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff Daniel Zang (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Umami 

Sustainable Seafood, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a Joint Motion to Compel Production of 

Documents. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents responsive 

to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 5, 10, and 11, and Interrogatory No. 20. Defendant 

opposes. (Id. at pp. 13-16.) More specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling 

Defendant’s production of all Board of Director Meeting and Special Committee Meeting 

Minutes for 2012 and any related communications and documentation discussing 

Defendant’s shareholders, share transfers, customers, creditors, collateral, collateral 

agreements, collateral movements and financial position discussed therein. (Id. at p. 12.) 

In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiff requests an order prohibiting Defendant from 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

relying upon any documents that should have been produced and also award Plaintiff its 

reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing this motion. (Id.) 

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART 

and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff commenced this action on March 3, 2015. (ECF No. 1). The Court hereby 

incorporates the factual background laid out by the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia in his 

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 22.) 

Following Judge Battaglia’s Order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint bringing 

claims against Defendant for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing, and violation of New York Labor Law §§ 190, et seq. (ECF No. 23.) On 

September 30, 2015, Judge Battaglia dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s New York Labor 

Law §§190, et seq. claim. (ECF No. 29.) Defendant thereafter filed an Answer. (ECF No. 

30.) 

 Following a Case Management Conference, Judge Bartick issued a Scheduling 

Order regulating discovery in this matter. (ECF Nos. 34, 35.) Pursuant to the Scheduling 

Order, all discovery was to be completed on or before September 16, 2016. (ECF No. 35 

at ¶ 5.) All dispositive motions were due on or before November 2, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On 

November 2, 2016, the parties filed this Joint Motion to Compel Production of Documents 

and Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The threshold requirement for discoverability under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is whether the information sought is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense 

and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to consider 

include “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of 

the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. “Information within this scope of discovery 

need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. 

The relevance standard is commonly recognized as one that is necessarily broad in 

scope. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman 

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). However broadly defined, relevancy is not without 

“ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507. Accordingly, district 

courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. District courts 

also have broad discretion to limit discovery. For example, a court may limit the scope of 

any discovery method if it determines that “the discovery sought is unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or the “proposed discovery is outside the 

scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii). “The party who 

resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be allowed, and has the 

burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 

258 F.R.D. 375, 378 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 

429 (9th Cir. 1975); Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 233 F.R.D. 573, 575 (C.D. Cal. 

2005)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff seeks to compel further response to his Requests for Production Nos. 2, 5, 

10, and 11, and Interrogatory No. 20. (See ECF No. 36 at p. 10.) Specifically, Plaintiff 

requests the Court enter an order compelling Defendant’s production of all Board of 

Director Meeting and Special Committee Meeting Minutes for 2012 and any related 

communications and documentation discussing Defendant’s shareholders, share transfers, 

customers, creditors, collateral, collateral agreements, collateral movements and financial 

position discussed therein. (Id. at p. 12.) In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiff 

requests an order prohibiting Defendant from relying upon any documents that should have 

been produced and also award Plaintiff its reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in pursuing this motion. (Id.) 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

 A. Timeliness of Motion 

As an initial matter, as pointed out by Defendant, the present motion is untimely 

under Judge Bartick’s Civil Chambers Rules. Plaintiff initially served his Requests for 

Production and Interrogatories on Defendant on April 14, 2016. (Id. at Exh. 1.) Defendant 

served its initial responses on May 31, 2016. (Id. at Exh. 2.) Defendant objected to 

Requests for Production Nos. 2 and 5 on relevancy grounds, but responded that it will 

produce documents “to the extent such [documents] discuss any transfer of Umami stock 

and/or plaintiff.” (Id.) Defendant did not object to Requests for Production Nos. 10 and 

11, but rather stated that it will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents. (Id. at 

28.) Defendant further objected on various grounds to Interrogatory No. 20, but stated that 

it “will produce all non-privileged documents reflecting, evidencing or discussing any 

meetings or communications relating to foreclosure of Umami stock by creditors of 

Atlantis and/or the resignation of Oil Steindorsson as CEO of Umami.” (Id. at 13.) 

Defendant did not, however, produce any documents with its responses, or state that no 

such documents exist. (Id. at p. 5, Exh. 3.) Therefore, pursuant to Judge Bartick’s Civil 

Chambers Rules, the event giving rise to the dispute occurred on May 31, 2016, thereby 

starting the forty-five (45) day clock, which ran on July 15, 2016.1

 However, in the 

interests of justice, the Court will address the dispute below. 

B. Motion to Compel 

First, Plaintiff seeks production of all Board of Director Meeting and Special 

Committee Meeting Minutes for 2012. (ECF No. 36 at p. 12.) In his Requests for 

                                               

1

 See Civil Chambers Rules at ¶ IV(C) (“If the parties have not resolved their 

dispute through the meet and confer process, counsel shall, within forty-five (45) days of 

the date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute occurred, file a joint statement 

entitled ‘Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute’ with the Court.”), (D) (“For 

written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the service of the initial 

response, or the time for such service if no response is given.”); see also ECF No. 36 at 

Exh. 3 (Plaintiff’s first apparent attempt to meet and confer on the failure to produce was 

on August 9, 2016, nearly a month after the deadline). 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

Production, Plaintiff requested meeting minutes. Specifically, Request for Production No. 

2 requests the “minutes and resolutions for all shareholders, directors and/or partners 

meetings of [Defendant] for the years 2010 through the present.” (Id. at Exh. 1.) In 

addition, Request for Production No. 5 requests the “minutes of all shareholders’ meetings 

from 2010 through current and records of all action taken by [Defendant] shareholders 

without a meeting.” (Id.) In response to these requests, Defendant agreed to produce 

responsive documents only “to the extent such documents discuss any transfer of Umami 

stock and/or plaintiff.” (Id. at Exh. 2.) In response to Interrogatory No. 20, Defendant also 

agreed to produce “all non-privileged documents reflecting, evidencing or discussing any 

meetings or communications relating to foreclosure of Umami stock by creditors of 

Atlantis and/or the resignation of Oli Steindorsson as CEO of Umami.” (Id.) 

Despite agreeing to produce meeting minutes, Defendant did not initially produce 

any meeting minutes responsive to Requests Nos. 2 and 5 and Interrogatory No. 20, and 

did not state in its responses, as required,2

 that no such minutes exist. (Id. at pp. 5-6, Exh. 

2.) Defendant later informed Plaintiff that while meetings occurred, no minutes were 

taken. (Id. at Exh. 6.) Therefore, Defendant claimed there was nothing to produce. (Id.) 

/// 

                                               

2

 See Medina v. Cnty of San Diego, No. 08cv1252 BAS (RBB), 2014 WL 

4793026, at *19 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (a party must comply with “the requirement 

that he state under oath that he lacks possession, custody, and control of documents 

requested under Rule 34”); Thomas v. Heberling, No. 12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC), 2015 

WL 2358101, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2015) (“In responding to discovery requests, a 

reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, 

. . . the responding party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to 

determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.” 

(internal citations omitted)); Rodriguez v. Simmons, No. 09-cv-02195 KJN, 2011 WL 

1322003, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011) (parties have an “obligation to clearly state that 

responsive documents do not exist, have already been produced, or exist but are being 

withheld on privacy grounds or due to other objections”); see also Haeger v. Goodyear 

Tire & Rubber Co., 906 F. Supp. 2d 938, 976-80 (D. Ariz. 2012). 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

Specifically, Defendant denied that minutes were kept of the following meetings: 

Board of Directors: October 29, 2012; November 20, 2012 

Special Meeting of the Board of Directors: December 3, 2012; December 8, 2012 

Executive Committee: December 22, 2012; December 29, 2012; January 29, 2013; 

February 4, 2013; February 11, 2013 

(Id. at Exh. 5.) 

 After follow up by Plaintiff, Defendant produced meeting minutes for the following 

dates, several of which overlap with the dates above, for which Defendant previously 

denied minutes existed: October 10, 2012; October 29, 2012; November 20, 2012; 

November 28, 2012; November 29, 2012; December 3, 2012. (ECF No. 36 at pp. 8-9.) 

 Plaintiff again followed up with Defendant based on information that meeting 

minutes exist for the following dates: 

Board of Directors: March 21, 2012; June 25, 2012; July 4, 2012 

Special Committee Meeting: May 6, 2012; August 9, 2012; August 16, 2012; August 

29, 2012; September 6, 2012 

Audit Committee: February 8, 2012; May 20, 2012 

(Id. at Exh. 7.) 

 Defendant responded that these minutes “have no relevance to the dispute in this 

case,” and stated that, as set forth in its responses to the Requests for Production, Defendant 

would only “produce minutes that discuss any transfer of Umami stock and/or plaintiff, 

which would be the only matters relevant to this case.” (Id. at Exh. 8; see also Exh. 9.) 

Defendant thereafter stated that it would not be producing any additional minutes. (Id.; see 

also Exh. 9.) 

 For purposes of the present motion, Plaintiff clarifies that he only seeks Board and 

Special Committee meeting minutes for 2012. (Id. at p. 12, Exh. 9.) Defendant objects, 

arguing that “Plaintiff articulates no basis for having [Defendant] produce corporate 

minutes and resolutions that are removed in time and substance from the allegations in the 

FAC[;] [a]s the FAC makes clear, the relevant events occurred in late 2012.” (Id. at p. 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

15.) As Plaintiff now only seeks production of minutes from 2012, this argument is 

unfounded. Defendant also argues that the meeting minutes from 2012 which it has not 

produced are not relevant. However, based on the information before the Court, the Court 

finds all corporate meeting minutes from 2012 to be relevant under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b) and orders Defendant to produce them. 

 Plaintiff also seeks “any related communications and documentation discussing 

Defendant’s shareholders, share transfers, customers, creditors, collateral, collateral 

agreements, collateral movements and financial position discussed” in the meeting 

minutes. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 2, 5, 10, and 11 do not appear, however, 

to cover all related communications and documentation. Accordingly, the Court cannot 

compel a blanket response. However, to the extent any related non-privileged 

communications and documentation overlap with the documents sought in those requests, 

they must be produced.3

 Although the Court is concerned by Defendant’s lack of responsiveness and apparent 

misrepresentations in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, as the motion to compel 

was granted in part and denied in part, the Court, in its discretion, denies Plaintiff’s request 

to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing this motion. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents responsive to Requests for 

Production Nos. 2, 5, 10, and 11, and Interrogatory No. 20. Defendant has fifteen (15) 

                                               

3

 In this regard, the Court notes that as to Requests for Production Nos. 10 and 

11, Defendant did not assert any objections to these requests and claims it has produced 

responsive documents and “is not withholding any documents responsive to these requests 

on grounds of relevance or otherwise.” (ECF No. 36 at pp. 13-14, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff does 

not dispute this contention. 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8 

15-cv-00475-AJB (DHB) 

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

court days to produce documents in accordance with this Order. The Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in pursuing this motion. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 22, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 LOUISA S PORTER 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00475-AJB-DHB Document 42 Filed 12/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8