Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03792/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03792-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROJECT SENTINEL,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RUTH BRIONES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

VICTOR NEWMAN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RUTH BRIONES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-3792 MJJ (BZ)

Consolidated with:

No. C04-3793 MJJ (BZ)

ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER

DISCOVERY

Having reviewed the papers filed by both sides, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel further answer to

Interrogatory No. 7 as to defendants Glass Trust (Glass),

Baum Trust (Baum), and J. Sosnick & Sons (Sosnick) is GRANTED

to extent it seeks information about any other property

Case 3:04-cv-03792-MJJ Document 56 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 3
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

managed by Ruth Briones and DENIED in all other respects. 

Plaintiff has not established that information about any

property other than one managed by Briones is relevant to any

claim or defense in this action. 

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel further answer to

Interrogatory No.8 as to Glass, Baum and Sosnick is GRANTED

to the extent that each defendant must state its present net

worth and DENIED without prejudice in all other respects. 

This information shall be disclosed to plaintiff's counsel

only pursuant to an appropriate protective order. If after

receiving the answer, plaintiff's counsel doubt the accuracy

of the information, or believe they need further information,

they may renew their request for further detail by sending a

letter to the court pursuant to my initial discovery order

expressing their doubts.

3. Plaintiff's motion to compel further answer to

Interrogatory No. 8 as to defendant Briones is GRANTED to the

extent she is required to identify any other rental property

she has owned in part or in full since January 1, 2000 and

DENIED in all other respects. 

4. Plaintiff's motion to compel further answer to

Interrogatory No. 9 as to Briones is GRANTED to the extent

that she shall provide her net worth to plaintiff's counsel

pursuant to a protective order and DENIED without prejudice

in all other respects for the reasons given in paragraph 2. 

5. Plaintiff's motion to compel Glass, Baum and Sosnick

to produce documents in response to Requests No. 21, 22, and

23 is DENIED without prejudice to being renewed if plaintiff

Case 3:04-cv-03792-MJJ Document 56 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 3
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

is not satisfied with the net worth information it receives.

6. Plaintiff's motion to compel Briones to produce

further documents in response to Requests 19, 20, 21, 22 and

23 is DENIED without prejudice to being renewed if plaintiff

is not satisfied with the net worth information it receives.

Further answers are due from the individual defendants

by August 1, 2005 and from Sosnick by September 1, 2005.

Dated: July 6, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\PROJECT SENTINEL\DISCOVERY3.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-03792-MJJ Document 56 Filed 07/06/05 Page 3 of 3