Case Information
*1 Case 2:15-cv-01434-GMN-VCF Document 106 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; et.al. , Case No. 2:15 – cv – 1434 – GMN – VCF
Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER
OBTEEN N. NASSIRI; et.al. ,
Defendants.
Before the court are Allstate’s motion for leave to propound additional interrogatories (ECF No. 102), Nassiri s’ response [1] (ECF No. 103) , and Allstate’ s reply (ECF No. 105). For the reasons stated below, Allstate’s motion is granted.
I. Background
In an earlier action, Allstate obtained an approximately $8 million judgment against the Defendants. (ECF No. 1) This action is an attempt to collect on that judgment. As part of discovery, Allstate served the Defendants with its first set of interrogatories. (ECF No. 102) The Defendants believed the subparts of certain questions were separate interrogatories. (ECF No. 103) The Defendants only responded to what they believed to be the first 25 interrogatories. ( Id. ) Allstate now moves for leave to serve its remaining interrogatories, originally numbered 9 through 35.
/// /// ///
/// /// /// *2 Case 2:15-cv-01434-GMN-VCF Document 106 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2 II. Discussion “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 33(a)(1). “Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to t he extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Id.
“ T o secure the court’s leave, a party requesting additional interrogatories must make a particularized showing as to why additional discovery is necessary.” Santo v. Baca , No.2:11-cv-1251- KJD-NJK, 201 5 WL 6134307 at* 1 (D.Nev. Oct. 15, 2015). “A party satisfies this burden when she establishes that the additional interrogatories seek specific, discoverable information.” Id.
Interrogatories 9 through 35 ask about the extent of the Nassiri s’ assets. For example, interrogatories 9-10 ask about real estate, interrogatories 11-18 ask about stocks, while interrogatory 33 asks about individuals who may be holding assets for the Nassiris. (ECF No. 102-8) Each interrogatory asks about a specific category of wealth in which the Nassiris may have an interest. Given Obteen Nassiri’s evasive deposition responses, the Nassiris’ alleged maintenance of their pre-lawsuit lifestyle, and other indicators that the Nassiris are concealing assets, this court grants Allstate leave to serve additional interrogatories.
ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Allstate’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories (ECF No. 102) is GRANTED. Allstate may serve interrogatories 9-35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 21st day of October, 2016.
_________________________ CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
[1] There are two sets of Defendants, each represented by a different law firm. Defendants Obteen Nassiri, Jennifer Nassiri, 24 Harley Truck, LLC, and DAA Trust are represented by Hutchinson & Steffen. Defendants Faa Foi Tuitama, Advanced Med LLC, and Green Tree Services LLC are represented by Callister & Frizell. The Nassiris opposed Allstate’s motion. All other 25 Defendants joined in the motion. (ECF No. 104) 1