Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01770/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01770-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Morgan Albanese
Defendant
Ameen Hofioni
Counter Defendant
Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC
Counter Claimant
Litigation Services
Counter Claimant
The LIT Group
Counter Claimant
U.S. Legal Support, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMEEN HOFIONI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

On September 9, 2015, the court held a hearing on defendant Ameen Hofioni’s motion to 

compel. Jennifer Holly appeared on behalf of plaintiff U.S. Legal Support, Inc.; and Daniel 

Baxter appeared on behalf of defendant Hofioni. On review of the motions, the documents filed 

in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel, and good cause 

appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

I. Factual Allegations 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ameen Hofioni and Morgan Albanese misappropriated 

trade secrets and other confidential information from it for the benefit of their new employers, 

defendants the LIT Group, Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC, and Litigation Services (collectively 

“Corporate Defendants”), while they were employed by plaintiff. ECF No. 44 at 1. According to 

plaintiff, the Corporate Defendants have been using this confidential information to solicit 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 9
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

plaintiff’s customers and recruit its employees. Id. The trade secrets at issue include: (1) the 

identity of plaintiff’s largest accounts; (2) information on the revenue generated by plaintiff from 

its largest accounts; (3) upward and downward revenue trends; (4) the most active accounts by 

number of depositions ordered and the person responsible for ordering those depositions; and (5) 

plaintiff’s representatives by state and their productivity measured by number of depositions and 

records ordered. Id. These trade secrets allow the Corporate Defendants to successfully target 

plaintiff’s customers and employees. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Corporate Defendants had virtually no presence in Northern 

California prior to defendants Hofioni and Albanese joining their operation and that the customer 

lists at issue took years and millions of dollars to compile. Id. Over a period of days defendants 

Hofioni and Albanese covertly funneled this information to their personal email accounts to be 

given to the Corporate Defendants. Id. 

Plaintiff further alleges that defendants Hofioni and Albanese submitted fraudulent 

expense reports related to defendant Hofioni’s use of plaintiff’s funds to purchase gift cards. Id. 

at 2. These cards were not provided to plaintiff’s customers or returned to plaintiff upon 

defendant Hofioni’s resignation. Id. These gift cards remain unaccounted for until this day 

except to the extent that they have been used. Id. In the expense reimbursement documents 

defendants Hofioni and Albanese submitted to plaintiff they claimed that these gift cards had 

been given to individuals employed by law firms that used plaintiff’s services. Id. However, 

upon further investigation, plaintiff discovered that some of these cards were used by defendants 

Hofioni and Albanese at local businesses. Id. Based on defendants misappropriation of trade 

secrets plaintiff seeks restitution and injunctive relief for breach of contract, breach of duties of 

loyalty and confidence, unfair competition, conversion, and fraud. Id. at 3. 

II. Procedural Background 

Plaintiff filed its original complaint on August 6, 2013. ECF No. 1. On September 24, 

2013, the parties submitted a stipulated protective order, which the court issued on October 9, 

2013. ECF Nos. 24, 27. On October 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 

claims. ECF No. 26. On November 4, 2013, the parties attended a status conference before the 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 9
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

presiding district judge, who agreed to set the discovery deadline for December 4, 2014; the 

motion deadline for February 4, 2015; and the final pretrial conference for May 4, 2015. ECF 

No. 32. On November 7, 2013, the court issued a scheduling order setting out the dates outlined 

above. ECF No. 34. On December 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for contempt and sanctions 

against defendants Hofioni and Albanese. ECF No. 37. On December 20, 2013, the court issued 

an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part with leave to 

amend. ECF No. 38. On January 3, 2014, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint. 

ECF No. 44. 

On January 15, 2014, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for contempt 

and sanctions. ECF No. 47. On January 21, 2014, defendants filed an answer. ECF No. 48. On 

March 19, 2014, Squire Sanders LLP (“Squire”) moved to withdraw as counsel of record for 

defendant Hofioni. ECF No. 50. On April 22, 2014, following the hearing on Squire’s motion, 

the court ordered Squire to turn over records of certain communications between it and the 

Corporate Defendants. ECF No. 57. If Squire failed to do so, the court noted it would infer 

Squire violated its duty of loyalty to defendant Hofioni and bar it from serving as counsel for all 

defendants. Id. On May 23, 2014, defendant Hofioni filed a response to Squire’s motion to 

withdraw requesting that the court bar it from representing all defendants in this matter. ECF No. 

61. On May 29, 2014, the court ordered Squire to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition 

to defendant Hofioni’s request within fifteen (15) days. ECF No. 62. On June 13, 2014, Squire 

filed an opposition to defendant Hofioni’s request. ECF No. 65. 

On June 30, 2014, defendant Hofioni filed a motion for leave to file cross-claims against 

the Corporate Defendants. ECF No. 67. The Corporate Defendants filed a notice of nonopposition to defendant Hofioni’s motion on July 10, 2014. ECF No. 71. On July 21, 2014, the 

court granted defendant Hofioni’s motion and ordered him to file his cross-complaint within 

seven days. ECF No. 74. Defendant Hofioni filed his cross-complaint the next day. ECF No. 75. 

On July 25, 2014, the court granted defendant Hofioni’s request that the court bar Squire 

from representing any defendants in this matter. ECF No. 80. The court stayed the matter to 

allow the non-Hofioni defendants to find counsel and to allow said counsel to familiarize 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 9
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

themselves with the case. Id. The court also ordered the non-Hofioni defendants to file a status 

report within sixty days, after which the stay would be lifted. Id. On August 27, 2014, this 

matter was transferred from Judge Karlton to Judge England. ECF No. 83. In light of the transfer 

of this matter Judge England vacated the scheduled final pretrial conference and jury trial. ECF 

No. 85. The parties submitted a joint status report on October 15, 2014. ECF No. 88. 

On November 25, 2014, the Corporate Defendants filed an answer and counter-complaint 

to defendant Hofioni’s cross-complaint. ECF No. 92. On December 29, 2014, defendant Hofioni 

filed an answer to the Corporate Defendants’ cross-complaint. ECF No. 97. On January 20, 

2015, the court issued a scheduling order setting a discovery deadline of November 12, 2015; and 

a dispositive motion deadline of May 12, 2016. ECF No. 100. On June 22, 2015, defendant 

Hofioni filed a motion to compel plaintiff to produce responses to certain written discovery 

requests. ECF No. 105. The hearing on that motion was originally scheduled for July 29, 2015, 

id.; then August 12, 2015, ECF No. 107; August 26, 2015, ECF No. 109; and finally September 

9, 2015, ECF No. 111. On September 2, 2015, defendant Hofioni and plaintiff filed a joint 

statement. ECF No. 113. 

III. Discovery Background 

On March 19 and March 25, 2015, defendant Hofioni served plaintiff with his (1) 

“Requests for Production of Documents, Set One;” (2) “Requests for Production of Documents, 

Set Two;” (3) “Interrogatories, Set One;” and (4) “Admissions, Set One.” ECF No. 113 at 2. 

Plaintiff’s responses consisted almost entirely of objections, and so the parties began a meet and 

confer effort that consisted of the following: 

 May 1, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff; 

 May 12, 2015 letter from plaintiff to defendant Hofioni; 

 May 13, 2015 in-person meeting between defendant Hofioni’s counsel and 

plaintiff’s counsel; 

 May 14, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff; 

 June 6, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff; 

 June 19, 2015 letter from plaintiff to defendant Hofioni; 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 9
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

 June 23, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff; and 

 Numerous emails and telephone conversations over this period of time. 

Id. 

This extended meet and confer process yielded additional responses to defendant 

Hofioni’s interrogatories on July 17, 2015, and the production of documents on August 5, 2015. 

Id. However, defendant Hofioni requests that the court compel plaintiff to respond further to 

Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, 

and 16. Id. at 7, 8 n.4, 9–10, 12. Specifically, defendant Hofioni raises the following issues: 

1. Defendant Hofioni seeks a verification that plaintiff has produced every responsive 

document in its possession, custody, or control. Id. at 3. Because of plaintiff’s 

incorporation of a vast array of boilerplate objections in its responses, defendant 

Hofioni contends that it is impossible for him to determine whether plaintiff has 

produced all of its responsive documents. Id. (Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 

7, 8, and 11). 

2. In response to certain requests for production, plaintiff invited defendant Hofioni to 

meet and confer regarding the parameters of his requests. Id. Efforts to meet and 

confer, however, did not result in further responses. Id. (Requests for Production 

Nos. 9, 10, and 11). 

3. Plaintiff has failed to produce all responsive documents to some of defendant 

Hofioni’s discovery requests based on the Corporate Defendants’ failure to respond 

fully to plaintiff’s own discovery requests. Id. (Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 

and 4; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16). 

Plaintiff responds that: 

1. Plaintiff will supplement its responses and give a clear intention to produce all 

responsive documents in its control. Id. at 5. However, plaintiff cannot produce all 

responsive documents at this time because it is still reviewing documents “and will 

supplement its production on a rolling basis.” Id. 

2. Plaintiff will produce supplemental responses to defendant Hofioni’s Requests for 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 9
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

Production Nos. 9, 10, and 11 by September 11, 2015.1 Id. 

3. Plaintiff contends that it cannot produce documents or supply responses to some of 

defendant Hofioni’s discovery requests because it first has to receive responses to its 

own discovery requests from the Corporate Defendants. Id. at 5–6. For example, 

defendant Hofioni’s Interrogatory No. 1 requests information on each trade secret that 

he allegedly stole. Id. However, plaintiff is unable to identify each trade secret that 

defendant Hofioni stole until the Corporate Defendants respond to discovery requests 

from plaintiff seeking communications between them and defendant Hofioni. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Generally, the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) “has been construed 

broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that 

could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 

U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any 

fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than 

it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. The court must limit discovery when “the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The court may also limit the extent of discovery to protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or other improper purposes. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(c)(1), 26(g)(1)(B)(ii). 

Federal Rules 33 and 34 provide that discovery requests must be responded to within 30 

 

1

 Plaintiff does not oppose defendant Hofioni’s motion to compel further responses to Requests 

for Production Nos. 9, 10, or 11. At the hearing, the undersigned asked plaintiff whether it had 

yet served defendant Hofioni with supplemental responses. Plaintiff responded that it had not yet 

served supplemental responses, but would do so by Friday, September 11, 2015. The court 

informed plaintiff at that time that it would be granting defendant Hofioni’s motion as to Requests 

for Production Nos. 9, 10, and 11. 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 6 of 9
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

(or in some cases 45) days. In response to a request for production of documents under Rule 34 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is to produce all relevant documents in his 

“possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Accordingly, a party has an 

obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his responses to discovery, 

National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 554–56 (N.D. Cal. 1987), 

and, based on that inquiry, “[a] party responding to a Rule 34 production request . . . ‘is under an 

affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably available to [it] from [its] employees, agents, 

or others subject to [its] control.’” Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223 (N.D. Ind. 1992) 

(citation omitted). 

Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that litigants have a 

continuing duty to “seasonably” supplement all responses to interrogatories and requests for 

production if their prior responses are either incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(e)(2) 

(“A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to an interrogatory, request for 

production . . . if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or 

incorrect . . . .”). 

DISCUSSION 

The court will grant defendant Hofioni’s motion to compel in its entirety because 

plaintiff’s responses are insufficient under the Federal Rules. 

Defendant Hofioni argues that plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 

4, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are insufficient because they (1) incorporate boilerplate objections and (2) do 

not admit to the production of all responsive documents.2

 According to defendant Hofioni, 

 

2

 Defendant Hofioni does not reproduce all of the requests for production, interrogatories, and 

responses at issue in the joint statement, in violation of Local Rule 251(c). Normally, this would 

be sufficient reason to deny his motion. However, plaintiff does not oppose defendant Hofioni’s 

motion based on the substance of his requests. Instead, plaintiff essentially opposes defendant 

Hofioni’s motion based on the assertion that it cannot fully respond at this early stage of 

discovery. Accordingly, the court will overlook defendant Hofioni’s failure to adhere to Local 

Rule 251(c) this time around. Nevertheless, defendant Hofioni’s failure to reproduce plaintiff’s 

responses makes it impossible to evaluate his argument that those responses include boilerplate 

objections. The one request for production that defendant Hofioni does include in the joint 

statement clearly reflects improper boilerplate objections based on the scope of the request, 

(continued...) 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 7 of 9
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

plaintiff’s responses are insufficient because in them plaintiff effectively refuses to produce 

responsive documents based on the contention that they are not relevant to the case as a whole. 

Plaintiff responds that it will continue to make responsive documents available to defendant 

Hofioni “on a rolling basis” as they become known in the course of discovery. Plaintiff does not 

address defendant Hofioni’s contention that its responses use boilerplate objections. 

Plaintiff has an obligation to produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, 

or control within thirty (30) days of the request for production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Plaintiff 

does not have the right to decline to produce documents responsive to defendant Hofioni’s 

requests based on the contention that those documents are ultimately irrelevant to Hofioni’s 

claims. If plaintiff believed that defendant Hofioni’s requests sought irrelevant documents, it 

should have opposed them on that basis. The time for doing so has now passed and accordingly, 

any such objection has been waived. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 

F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). 

At the hearing, plaintiff requested that the court’s order disposing of defendant’s motion 

to compel include a caveat that plaintiff may supplement discovery with responsive documents as 

they become known. However, plaintiff may not reserve the right to produce responsive 

documents “on a rolling basis” because of the volume of discovery in this matter. While the court 

is aware that discovery can, at times, prove a burdensome and lengthy enterprise, that fact does 

not justify what would effectively be a period of endless discovery. Of course, if plaintiff finds 

after the deadline to produce responsive documents has passed that more responsive documents 

are in its possession, custody, or control, it can (and must) supplement its responses. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(e). Such conduct would not be improper as long as plaintiff’s initial search was done 

diligently and in good faith. See Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 604, 615 (C.D. 

Cal. 2013) (“[T]he discovery process relies upon the good faith and professional obligations of 

 

relevance, and attorney-client privilege. ECF No. 113 at 7–8; see also A. Farber & Partners, Inc. 

v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as 

‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper—especially when a party fails to submit any 

evidentiary declarations supporting such objections.”). The reproduction of a single response; 

however, does not allow the court to make a determination as to plaintiff’s remaining objections. 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 8 of 9
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

counsel to reasonably and diligently search for and produce responsive documents.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

Defendant Hofioni argues that plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 

3, and 4; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16 are insufficient because they do not include all 

responsive documents and information. Plaintiff claims to be unable to provide all responsive 

documents and information because the parties are at the early stages of discovery and the 

requests are premature. Specifically, plaintiff argues that it cannot respond fully to defendant 

Hofioni’s discovery requests until it receives responses to its own discovery requests from the 

Corporate Defendants. This excuse is insufficient. Once again, plaintiff must produce all 

responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). In addition, 

it must respond to defendant Hofioni’s interrogatories separately and fully, under oath, to the best 

of its ability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). Obviously, plaintiff is not required to produce documents 

that is has no way of knowing are responsive to defendant Hofioni’s requests, nor is it required to 

provide information it does not yet have. Defendant does not argue otherwise. However, the fact 

that plaintiff anticipates receiving new information from the Corporate Defendants that might 

require it to supplement its responses does not mean that it can simply decline to fully respond to 

discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Accordingly, the court will grant defendant 

Hofioni’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

and 11; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16 because plaintiff’s responses do not comply with 

the Federal Rules. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that defendant Hofioni’s 

motion to compel, ECF No. 105, is GRANTED. Plaintiff must provide documents responsive to 

Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; and responsive answers to 

Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16 within thirty (30) days of service of this order. 

DATED: October 7, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-01770-MCE-AC Document 123 Filed 10/08/15 Page 9 of 9