Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00320-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOEL LYNN NOLEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD

ORDER

A motion to compel discovery filed on May 6, 2024, by plaintiff United States of America 

is before the court. (ECF No. 55.) The court held a hearing via videoconference on May 29, 2024, 

with counsel for the parties involved in the present dispute. Alan Martinson appeared and argued 

for the government and Jeffrey Schultz appeared and argued for defendants Joel Nolen and 

Shirlee Nolen. Email Morris and Katherine Raimondo also appeared for the government. Having 

considered the parties’ joint statement on the discovery dispute and arguments at the hearing, the 

court grants the motion on most of the disputed issues, as set forth below. 

I. Background 

The United States proceeds on an amended complaint filed on April 6, 2023, with claims 

brought under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3617, 3614(a). (ECF No. 14.) 

The United States alleges defendant, Joel Nolen, subjected female tenants and prospective tenants 

at the properties defendants owned or managed to discrimination on the basis of sex, including 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 10
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

sexual harassment. (Id., ¶¶ 20-24.) The government alleges Shirlee Nolen, Joel Nolen’s wife, is 

vicariously liable and that she knew or should have known about the conduct yet failed to take 

reasonable preventative or corrective measures she had the authority to take. (Id., ¶ 26.) All 

defendants, including the Nolens, deny any liability or wrongdoing. (ECF Nos. 35-37.) 

According to the parties’ joint statement on the discovery dispute, the United States 

served its First Set of Interrogatories and First set of Requests for Production of Documents on 

defendants Joel Nolen and Shirlee Nolen (“the Nolens” or “defendants”) on September 11, 2023. 

(See ECF No. 56 at 3.) The Nolens served objections to the Interrogatories and Requests for 

Production of Documents on October 11, 2023. (Id.) On November 13, 2023, Shirlee Nolen 

provided supplemental responses with an invitation to inspect the defendants’ office records 

consisting of paper documents maintained at the defendants’ rental office in Susanville, 

California, and paper documents stored at their home in Tracy (“Tracy documents”). (Id. at 4.) 

The Tracy documents were moved to the Susanville rental office and the parties planned 

for the United States to inspect and copy the records. (ECF No. 56 at 4-5.) Various circumstances 

contributed to delay and the United States did not gain procurement approval for photocopying in 

time for the scheduled inspection date. (Id. at 5.) The parties reached an agreement under which 

the Nolens would scan the paper documents and provide them to the United States. (Id.) The

scanned documents were provided on March 4, 2024. (Id.) The production did not include 

electronically stored information (“ESI”) except for physically printed records of 

correspondences maintained by office managers. (Id.) Also on March 4, 2024, the Nolens 

supplemented their discovery responses, directing the United States to the production along with 

other supplemented information. (Id.) 

During a meet and confer conference on March 26, 2024, counsel for the Nolens “agreed

to supplement their discovery responses, including providing additional information in 

interrogatory responses, conducting a search for ESI (including Facebook, emails, and text 

messages), providing financial documents (including tax returns), and providing Defendants’ 

liability insurance policy.” (ECF No. 56 at 6.) As of the filing of the joint statement on May 6, 

2024, there had been no further supplemental responses, no additional document production, and 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 10
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

no timeline for production. (Id.) At the videoconference hearing on May 29, 2024, counsel for the 

Nolens clarified the search for ESI was “put on pause” once the present motion was placed on the 

court’s calendar.

The United States filed the motion to compel and the parties’ joint statement on the 

discovery dispute on May 6, 2024. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) Discovery closes on August 30, 2024. 

(ECF Nos. 52, 53.) 

II. Legal Standards 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for broad and liberal discovery: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as 

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering 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 discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

When a party seeks to compel discovery under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, “[t]he party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 

satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 

Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Soto v. City of Concord, 

162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995)). In turn, the party opposing the discovery “has the burden 

of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining 

and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” Id. (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 

F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). 

III. Discussion

The present dispute involves the following categories of information: (1) ESI responsive 

to the United States’ discovery requests; (2) property ownership information; (3) financial 

information; (4) sexual contact or communications by Joel Nolen (and related complaints); (5) 

tenant information; and (6) insurance policies. (ECF No. 56 at 6.) At the outset, the United States 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 3 of 10
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

4

meets its burden to show the requests at issue seek relevant information and documents, subject to 

some limiting for scope and time period.

Generally, the United States argues counsel for the Nolens have acknowledged further

responsive information exists. In the joint statement, the Nolens argue, generally, all documents 

and information obtained thus far have been produced and that efforts to obtain information are

ongoing. However, it is difficult to understand the Nolens’ position in light of counsel’s 

clarification at the hearing that, to the contrary, searches were paused following the filing of the 

motion to compel. The court flatly rejects the Nolens’ argument that production pursuant to 

additional supplemental responses—without an order compelling such production—would suffice 

under the circumstances.

The Nolens take issue with the scope of the government’s requests that span several 

decades. The United States argues defendants fail to acknowledge agreements during the meet 

and confer process to accommodate scope objections, such as, for example, a limitation for 

Interrogatory #3 to “an estimate of annual or monthly income over the past five years.” (ECF No. 

56 at 20.) In addition, at the videoconference hearing, the government indicated it would be 

satisfied with document production of tax returns and interrogatories responses regarding assets 

and liabilities for the last three years. Otherwise, though, the parties have failed to inform the 

court of any agreements they made limiting scope in meet and confer.

A. Electronically Stored Information

The government seeks to compel defendants to promptly provide all responsive ESI and 

respond fully to all interrogatories with information available from their ESI. (ECF No. 56 at 

10.)1

The Nolens argue Mrs. Nolen’s participation with the business is “hands-off and limited 

to paying some (paper) bills for certain properties, which are mailed to Tracy.” (ECF No. 56 at 

1 The United States indicates a subsequent request for a full download of Facebook information is 

not at issue in the present motion, but that Mrs. Nolen has agreed to provide the information and 

Mr. Nolen states no responsive documents exist. (ECF No. 56 at 10, n.8.) Should any further 

discovery dispute arise in this case, the parties are directed to consider utilizing the undersigned’s 

procedures for Informal Telephonic Conferences on Discovery Disputes available on the court’s 

website. 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 4 of 10
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

12.) They argue she does not use a computer. (Id.) They indicate she possesses no relevant ESI 

and argue the information the government seeks to compel is disproportionate to the needs of the 

case with the burden and expense of providing the information substantially outweighing any 

benefit. In light of these representations, defendants argue, there is no good cause for compelling 

production of any ESI from Mrs. Nolen. 

 Similarly, defendants argue, Mr. Nolen utilizes office staff to draft and serve notices and 

communicate with tenants, almost never uses a computer, and maintains a single personal email 

account. (ECF No. 56 at 13.) A third-party vendor was engaged to collect communications with 

tenants including ESI from the email account and “has yet to find any” such communications. 

(Id.) As noted above, though, search efforts were paused. 

It clearly appears there is responsive ESI in defendants’ possession, custody, or control 

which has not been produced. Moreover, although the Nolens appear to argue there may be

limited relevant ESI to produce, they present no persuasive arguments regarding the scope or 

relevance of the requests by the government as to ESI. Accordingly, the motion to compel is 

granted as to the Nolens’ ESI. 

B. Property Ownership Information and Documents

The Nolens responded to discovery requests2 about their ownership of property, including 

property addresses, dates of ownership, and property transfers, by directing the government to the 

document production made on March 6, 2024. (ECF No. 56-1 at 15-23.) The government argues 

the production fails to provide a complete picture of defendants’ ownership of rental properties, 

and that defendants have failed to provide a list of either current or former properties. (ECF No. 

56 at 16.) 

Defendants argue information about their ownership of properties is publicly available. 

(ECF No. 56 at 17-18.) They argue they already produced the entirety of their property ownership 

records and “described the extent of their minimal property transfers” to their children as early 

inheritance. (Id.) 

2 The requests at issue are RFP Nos. 1-3 and Interrogatory Nos. 1 & 4 to both Nolens. 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 5 of 10
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

The Nolens represent they have not withheld any responsive documents regarding 

property ownership information, and the government does not present any specific arguments to 

the contrary. The United States does not meet its burden for an order compelling further 

document production on these requests at this time.

As to the relevant interrogatories to both Nolens, however, the motion to compel is 

granted. The Nolens have referred to broad swaths of records in reliance on Rule 33(d) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides as follows: 

(d) Option to Produce Business Records. If the answer to an 

interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, 

abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including 

electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or 

ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either 

party, the responding party may answer by: 

(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail 

to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as 

readily as the responding party could; and

(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to 

examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, 

abstracts, or summaries.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) (emphasis added). Specifically, the Nolens have referred to the production 

of documents Bates stamped NOLEN_000001-NOLEN_004812. (See, e.g., ECF No. 56-1 at 15.) 

The production of the entirety of defendants’ office records and paper documents stored at 

their home, without any further specification of the documents that answer the interrogatories, 

does not suffice to answer the interrogatories. See O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 

272, 277 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“Rule 33(d) is not satisfied by the wholesale dumping of 

documents.”). “[W]hen voluminous documents are produced under Rule 33(d), they must be 

accompanied by indices designed to guide the searcher to the documents responsive to the 

interrogatories.” Id. at 278. 

Accordingly, the Nolens’ election to produce business records under Rule 33(d) is 

insufficient as to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 4. The election to produce business records is also 

deficient to the extent it does not provide all of the information requested. If, after a diligent 

search, the Nolens are unable to answer the interrogatories, they may indicate as much in their 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 6 of 10
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

responses. However, the United States is entitled to a response, even if the response is that 

defendants are unable to provide portions of the requested information. 

C. Financial Information 

In addition to information about property ownership, the United States seeks discovery3

related to the Nolens’ income, banks used, and net worth, as relevant to determine their financial 

condition. (ECF No. 56 at 19.) 

The Nolens argue they have not put an ability or inability to pay punitive damages at 

issue, but the information is nevertheless relevant. District courts in this and other circuits 

routinely allow discovery of information relating to a defendant’s financial condition in advance 

of trial without requiring a special showing. E.g., E.E.O.C. v. California Psychiatric Transitions, 

258 F.R.D. 391, 394-95 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 

The Nolens argue their responses and document production provided all information in 

their possession, including mortgage and loan records, rent receipts, and leases. (ECF No. 56 at 

24 n. 16.) However, the government argues 

the production is lacking any tax returns or documents related to 

property transfers to family members. In addition, ... there do not 

appear to be ledgers for all properties Defendants currently own, and 

there are no ledgers showing 2023 rental income. And the document 

production does not provide information about non-property assets 

the defendants may own, [or] other liabilities. 

(Id. at 21.) In addition, at the videoconference hearing, counsel for the Nolens appeared to 

concede that, contrary to the argument in the joint statement, there are other responsive 

documents within their possession, custody, or control, including tax returns. 

 Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted as to the document requests regarding 

financial information, limited to the time period(s) agreed upon by the parties, or, in the absence 

of agreement, to the past five years. As to interrogatories on financial information, the motion to 

3 The requests at issue regarding “income” are Interrogatory No. 3 to both defendants. The 

requests at issue regarding “banks used” are Interrogatory No. 19 and RFP No. 26 to J. Nolen and 

Interrogatory No. 17 and RFP #28 to S. Nolen. The requests at issue regarding “net worth” are 

Interrogatory No. 20 and RFP No. 27 to J. Nolen and Interrogatory No. 18 and RFP No. 28 to S. 

Nolen. 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 7 of 10
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 

8

compel is also granted. If relying on document production to respond to these interrogatories, 

defendants must identify the responsive documents by page numbers or provide indices designed 

to guide the searcher to the documents responsive to the interrogatories. In addition, to the extent 

the document production does not answer the interrogatories, the Nolens must provide a further 

response even if the response will be that they are unable to answer.

D. Sexual Contact and Communications 

Through interrogatories directed to Joel Nolen, the United States seeks information about 

the identity of current, former, or prospective tenants or residents with whom he has engaged in 

or directed any actual or attempted sexual contact or communication, complaints alleging 

discrimination or unwelcome sexual contact or communication made against him or his agents 

and employees, and accusations or reports of sexual harassment or discrimination made against 

him or anyone working with him or on his behalf. 

The United States argues Mr. Nolen’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 12-14 are evasive 

and incomplete. Mr. Nolen responds that the requests are improper “blanket requests” for 

grievances. (ECF No. 56 at 28.) Mr. Nolen also argues the government simply disagrees with the 

responses or believes they are untrue. (Id.) 

The motion to compel is granted as to Interrogatory No. 12 because Mr. Nolen’s 

supplemental response speaks only to “sexual contact or attempted contact” with current tenants. 

(See ECF No. 56-1 at 37.) The response improperly excludes actual or attempted sexual contact 

to former or prospective tenants or any other person who has resided at the Subject properties. 

The motion to compel is granted as to Interrogatory No. 13 because Mr. Nolen’s 

supplemental response speaks only to “claims of discrimination, sexual or otherwise, to any 

government agency” made “prior to the instant case[.]” (See ECF No. 56-1 at 38.) The response 

therefore excludes other types of complaints, including verbal or written, formal or unformal, as 

well as those alleging unwelcome sexual contact or sexual communication.

The motion to compel is also granted as to Interrogatory No. 14, which asks about “every 

time any person has accused or reported that you or any person working with you or on your 

behalf engaged in sexual harassment or discrimination....” (See ECF No. 56-1 at 38.) Mr. 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 8 of 10
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 

9

Nolen’s supplemental response improperly limits his response to complaints “filed regarding 

persons working with [him] or on [his] behalf, including for any harassment, sexual or 

otherwise,” thus removing himself from the scope of the interrogatory. 

E. Tenant Identities

Through interrogatories,4 the United States seeks information about the identities of 

tenants and prospective tenants at the defendants’ rental properties, including the property 

addresses and dates associated with their tenancy or rental application. The government argues 

the Nolens must provide complete responses to the interrogatories based not only on their paper 

documents, but also on their memories and electronic communications. (ECF No. 56 at 29.) 

 The Nolens argue they rent approximately 40 properties at numerous locations and have 

done so for decades. They argue they do not have information responsive to much of the subject 

interrogatories, and that they elected to produce the entirety of their business records. (ECF No. 

56 at 31.) 

As set forth above, in order to rely on their document production in this instance, the 

Nolens must identify the documents that respond to the interrogatories or provide indices 

designed to guide the searcher to the documents that answer the interrogatories. To the extent the 

documents do not answer the interrogatories, Mr. Nolen must provide further supplemental 

responses. Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted as to the requests regarding tenant 

identities, except for the interrogatory directed to Mrs. Nolen. Mrs. Nolens’ interrogatory 

response sufficiently sets forth that she has no further information and adequately explains why. 

F. Insurance Policies

The United States seeks production of a Farmers Insurance policy that is paying for 

certain defense costs, but which has not been produced. 5

 (ECF No. 56 at 33.) The Nolens argue

the Farmers Insurance Policy is outside the scope of discovery because it does not provide 

coverage for satisfaction of any judgment. (Id. at 34.) The Nolens cite Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

4

 The requests at issue are Interrogatory No. 15 to J. Nolen and Interrogatory No. 13 to S. Nolen. 

5

 The requests at issue are RFP No. 28 to J. Nolen and RFP No. 29 to S. Nolen. 

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 9 of 10
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

10

26(a)(1)(A)(iv) for limiting scope in the manner argued, but the rule pertaining to required initial 

disclosures is not properly read to limit the scope of the requests currently at issue.

In any event, the Nolens represent that they offered to provide the policy in recent meet 

and confer. Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted on this portion of the dispute to the 

extent that the Nolens shall produce the Farmers Insurance policy.

IV. Order

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The United States’ motion to compel (ECF No. 55) is granted in part and denied in 

part, as follows:

a. Granted as to the requests for the Nolens’ ESI;

b. Granted as to Interrogatory Nos. 1 & 4 to both Nolens;

c. Denied as to RFP Nos. 1-3 to both Nolens;

d. Granted as to Interrogatory No. 3 to both defendants;

e. Granted as to Interrogatory No. 19 and RFP No. 26 to J. Nolen;

f. Granted as to Interrogatory No. 17 and RFP #28 to S. Nolen;

g. Granted as to Interrogatory No. 20 and RFP No. 27 to J. Nolen;

h. Granted as to Interrogatory No. 18 and RFP No. 28 to S. Nolen;

i. Granted as to Interrogatory Nos. 12-14 to J. Nolen;

j. Granted as to Interrogatory No. 15 to J. Nolen;

k. Denied as to Interrogatory No. 13 to S. Nolen;

l. Granted to the extent that the Nolens shall produce the Farmers Insurance 

policy.

2. The Nolen defendants shall produce responsive documents and provide further 

interrogatory responses as set forth herein within 21 days of the date of this order.

Dated: May 30, 2024

8

usa23cv0320.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00320-JAM-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/30/24 Page 10 of 10