Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking, LTD
2:14-cv-01099
| D. Nev. | Jan 22, 2016Background
- August 1, 2013 auto collision involving plaintiff Virginia Mitschke and Gosal Trucking driver Saeed Samimi; Mitschke sued Gosal for negligent hiring, training, retention, or supervision.
- Mitschke served her first set of Requests for Production (RFPs) in January 2015; Gosal produced 70 pages in March 2015 and served supplemental responses in December 2015.
- Mitschke moved to compel completion of responses to 25 disputed RFPs and to compel answers to Interrogatories No. 6 and No. 16 (Doc. #129).
- Gosal asserted multiple boilerplate objections (vagueness, overbreadth, relevance, burden, privilege, confidentiality, lack of possession) and refused or limited answers to certain interrogatories.
- The court reviewed the sufficiency of the objections, required either production or detailed support (privilege log or declarations) where Gosal failed to justify withholding, and resolved scope and interrogatory-count disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vague/ambiguous objections to several RFPs | Requests are specific in topic and timeframe | RFPs are vague and ambiguous | Overruled — requests were sufficiently specific |
| Overbreadth of certain RFPs (e.g., RFP 143) | Most RFPs are limited by time, subject, or defendant/driver | Requests are facially overbroad | Mostly overruled; RFP 143 sustained as overbroad and limited to Samimi-related documents |
| Relevance objections (various RFPs) | Documents sought bear on negligent hiring/training/retention and are proportional | Some RFPs are irrelevant (e.g., list of all drivers) | Overruled for most RFPs; relevancy sustained for RFP 90 (list of all drivers) |
| Work-product / attorney-client privilege claims (RFPs 17, 190) | Documents protected by privilege/work-product | Privilege asserted without adequate detail or log | Overruled; Gosal must produce or provide a detailed privilege log |
| Claims that documents are not in Gosal’s possession, custody, or control | Plaintiff seeks documents within Gosal’s control | Gosal says responsive documents are not in its possession | Overruled; Gosal must either produce or submit sworn declarations describing search efforts |
| Confidentiality of medical records (RFPs 11, 170) | Records are discoverable; confidentiality not established | Medical information is confidential and should be withheld | Overruled; Gosal must produce or cite federal authority supporting confidentiality |
| Interrogatory No. 6 (ECM/data) | Seeks identification/status of vehicle data; admissible and discoverable | Gosal claims it lacks possession/control of ECM data | Overruled; Gosal must answer or submit declaration explaining lack of information |
| Interrogatory No. 16 / interrogatory limit | Seeks ECM measurements; within limits | Mitschke exceeded 25-interrogatory limit because Interrogatory 3 contains 17 subparts | Gosal’s objection sustained; Mitschke may move for leave to serve interrogatories beyond the limit |
Key Cases Cited
- A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (boilerplate objections and broad relevancy objections are improper)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (blanket privilege assertions insufficient; particulars or privilege log required)