Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00269/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AIIRAM LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KB HOME,

Defendant.

Case No.19-cv-00269-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS

Re: Dkt. No. 30

This is 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. L.R. 7-1(b).

For the reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs’

motion to compel.

I. BACKGROUND

KB Home 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.

On 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 

Case 5:19-cv-00269-LHK Document 31 Filed 07/05/19 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

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.

On 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 pending.

Plaintiffs 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 action;

and

2. Whether KB Home may refuse to provide discovery relating to plaintiffs’ class 

allegations.

The Court addresses each objection separately.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Is Not Unreasonably Cumulative or Duplicative

Plaintiffs 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 responded 

to discovery requests in the state court action either. Dkt. No. 30 at 3–4.

KB Home argues that its objection is proper for three reasons. First, it argues that it should 

not have to respond to discovery because this case should be stayed pending resolution of 

plaintiffs’ state court action. Id. at 8. This argument is not well-taken. Whatever the merits of 

KB Home’s motion may be, discovery has not been stayed, and KB Home may not refuse or delay 

discovery on its own initiative simply because a motion to stay is pending, particularly where the 

presiding judge has set a schedule for completion of discovery and directed the parties to proceed 

“immediately” with discovery. 

Case 5:19-cv-00269-LHK Document 31 Filed 07/05/19 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Second, citing Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, KB Home argues that

responding to discovery in this case would be “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative” of 

discovery to which it has responded in the state court action. KB Home’s reliance on Rule 

26(b)(2)(C)(i)’s limitation on the scope of discovery distorts the purpose of that rule, which is to 

limit unreasonably cumulative or duplicative discovery in the action in which the discovery is 

served. Moreover, plaintiffs assert, without contradiction from KB Home, that the only discovery 

produced in the state court action thus far was provided by an entity called KB Home South Bay, 

and not by KB Home, the defendant in this action. KB Home has not shown that the discovery 

requests at issue in this dispute are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery 

plaintiffs have already served in this action. 

Third, KB Home argues that because there is a pending dispute about plaintiffs’ discovery 

in the state court action, KB Home should not be ordered to respond to the same discovery 

requests in this action, as such an order would risk “inconsistent results.” The pendency of a 

discovery dispute in a separate action in state court has no bearing on KB Home’s discovery 

obligations in this case before this Court. 

KB Home may not rely on the alleged duplicative nature of discovery requests in the state 

court action to avoid responding to plaintiffs’ discovery requests in this action.

B. Plaintiffs May Obtain Discovery Relating to Class Allegations

KB Home objects to many of plaintiffs’ discovery requests on the ground that they seek 

discovery bearing on plaintiffs’ state-wide and nationwide class action claims. Dkt. No. 30 at 6. 

Neither side identifies for the Court the particular discovery requests to which KB Home asserts

this objection. The Court has reviewed Exhibits A-C to the joint submission and observes that KB 

Home has made an objection based on Rule 23 to the following requests: Requests for Admissions 

Nos. 29-33, Interrogatories Nos. 1-9, and Requests for Production Nos. 6-11 and 17-18. Dkt. Nos. 

30-1, 30-2, 30-3. 

KB Home argues plaintiffs may not obtain discovery relating to their class claims unless 

they first show that their claims satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Id. In addition, KB Home 

says that plaintiffs are not entitled to any class discovery because they are not proper class 

Case 5:19-cv-00269-LHK Document 31 Filed 07/05/19 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

representatives. Id. Finally, KB Home objects that plaintiffs’ class-related discovery requests are 

overbroad to the extent they seek discovery of all of KB Home’s subsidiaries. Id. Plaintiffs do 

not address any these arguments in their portion of the joint submission; instead, they rely 

exclusively on the Court’s scheduling order, which states that discovery will not be stayed or 

bifurcated. Id. at 3. 

KB Home’s assertion that discovery related to class claims is permissible only if plaintiffs 

make a prima facie showing that their claims meet the requirements of Rule 23 is not correct. 

While a district court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to authorize pre-certification 

discovery when a plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing that the class action requirements 

are satisfied, such a showing is not required. In Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the 

Ninth Circuit recognized that a district court has broad discretion to permit pre-certification 

discovery to substantiate a plaintiff’s class allegations, including discovery necessary to determine 

the existence of a class or subclass. 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court 

rejects KB Home’s categorical argument that it may refuse discovery related to plaintiffs’ class 

claims because plaintiffs have not made a prima facie showing that their claims satisfy Rule 23’s 

requirements. 

For its argument that plaintiffs may not obtain class discovery because they are not proper 

class representatives, KB Home relies on Lou v. Ma Labs, Inc., No. C 12-05409 WHA, 2014 WL 

68605 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2014). Lou addressed the adequacy of class counsel to represent the 

putative class on a motion to disqualify counsel at the class certification stage. In that case, the 

Court concluded that class counsel had a conflict of interest and thus could not adequately 

represent the class, because they represented different plaintiffs in separate actions proceeding 

simultaneously with similar claims and evidence against the same defendants, “thereby creating

opportunities for counsel to manipulate the allocation of settlement dollars.” Id. at *2. Lou did

not consider the impact of class counsel’s inadequacy on the availability of class-related 

discovery. The question of whether plaintiffs’ counsel have a conflict of interest that warrants 

disqualification is a question that should be addressed on a motion to disqualify or as part of class 

certification, where the nature of the alleged conflict of interest can be fully explored. See 

Case 5:19-cv-00269-LHK Document 31 Filed 07/05/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

Sandoval v. Ali, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1046–47 (N.D. Cal. 2014). The Court will not bar plaintiffs 

from obtaining discovery regarding their class allegations on the basis of counsel’s alleged conflict 

of interest raised in this discovery dispute resolution proceeding.

KB Home correctly observes that discovery regarding plaintiffs’ class allegations must 

meet the relevance and proportionality requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs make absolutely 

no effort to explain how the discovery they seek will help them substantiate their class allegations, 

and they say nothing whatsoever about the relevance or proportionality of any of the disputed 

discovery requests. KB Home argues that plaintiffs’ class-related discovery requests are 

overbroad to the extent they seek discovery of all of KB Home’s subsidiaries besides KB Home 

South Bay. According to KB Home, plaintiffs did business only with KB Home South Bay, and 

no other subsidiaries. On that basis, it argues that plaintiffs’ discovery should be limited to KB 

Home South Bay. KB Home argues that broader discovery would constitute a “fishing 

expedition,” but it does not argue that such discovery would be burdensome. Id. at 7–8. KB 

Home also does not argue that discovery of its subsidiaries encompasses discovery that is outside 

KB Home’s possession, custody, or control.1

The Court notes that several of plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek to identify members of 

the putative class and subclass and to assess how many members, if any, each class or subclass

has. District courts in this Circuit generally permit such discovery. See, e.g., Guzman v. Chipotle 

Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-cv-02606, 2018 WL 6092730, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018); Bell v. 

Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. C 13-01199 YGR (LB), 2014 WL 985829, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 

2014); Artis v. Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Wigele v. FedEx Ground 

Package Sys., No. 06-CV-01330-JM (POR), 2007 WL 628041, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2007); 

Putman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 508 F. Supp. 2d 812, 814 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The Court also notes that 

plaintiffs’ discovery requests appear to incorporate the class and subclass definitions of the 

 

1 All of plaintiffs’ discovery requests are directed to “defendant KB Home, its subsidiaries and 

affiliates, and/or their officers, directors, employees, attorneys, experts, agents (including sales 

agents), representatives, and others acting on its behalf.” Dkt. Nos. 30-1, 30-2, 30-3 (definitions 

of “YOU” and “YOUR”). 

Case 5:19-cv-00269-LHK Document 31 Filed 07/05/19 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amended complaint in the defined terms “NATIONWIDE CLASS,” “CALIFORNIA 

SUBCLASS,” and “NOTICE OF DEFAULT.”. See In re Intuit Data Litig., No. 15-cv-01778 EJD 

(SVK), 2017 WL 3616592, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017) (observing that a court may consider 

the class definition in evaluating relevance of discovery). In these circumstances, the Court 

concludes that, absent a more substantial showing, plaintiffs may only obtain class-related 

discovery that is strictly commensurate with their class and subclass definitions and necessary to a 

determination of the existence, size, and membership of the class and subclass, as set forth below. 

With respect to KB Home’s overbreadth objection, the Court is reluctant to limit discovery 

to a single subsidiary where the claims here are made against KB Home (the parent company), KB 

Home has made no showing that the requested discovery is burdensome, and KB Home does not 

otherwise object to the scope of plaintiffs’ class-related discovery requests. Cf. Mora v. Zeta 

Interactive Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00198-DAD-SAB, 2017 WL 1187710, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 

2017) (finding defendant demonstrated a significant burden in responding to discovery on behalf 

of all subsidiaries based on allegations involving only one subsidiary).

Accordingly, KB Home must respond to the following class-related discovery requests: 

Requests for Admissions Nos. 31-32, Interrogatories Nos. 2, 7-8, and Requests for Production 

Nos. 6, 9, 17-18. KB Home must respond with respect to information and documents within its 

possession, custody, or control (not limited to its subsidiary KB Home South Bay). Plaintiffs’

motion to compel is denied without prejudice with respect to KB Home’s class action discovery 

objection as to the following discovery requests: Requests for Admissions Nos. 29-30, 33, 

Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3-6, 9, and Requests for Production Nos. 7-8, 10-11.

III. CONCLUSION

KB Home must serve responses to plaintiffs’ discovery, in accordance with this order, by 

July 15, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00269-LHK Document 31 Filed 07/05/19 Page 6 of 6