Pitz v. Gonzalez

Background

The court reviewed the parties’ August 6, 2025 joint discovery letter concerning Respondent Gonzalez’s discovery responses. The case is an expedited Hague Convention custody dispute. The court criticized both sides for failing to meet and confer in good faith, but it declined to require an in-person meeting under the circumstances. It warned that further failures to cooperate could lead to additional measures.

Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5

These questions sought Gonzalez’s grounds for disputing Pitz’s custody rights under German law and for asserting that removing the children from Germany did not violate those rights. The court rejected Pitz’s objection that the questions were premature because fact discovery was closing in two days.

The court ruled that Gonzalez need not answer if Gonzalez stipulated that Pitz had custody rights under German law and that the removal violated those rights. Otherwise, Gonzalez had to answer. The court limited the response to material or principal facts supporting the contentions, rather than every evidentiary fact. If Gonzalez’s only theory was that the children’s habitual residence was not Germany, Gonzalez could state that theory without providing additional facts.

Interrogatory No. 6

This interrogatory sought the identities, dates, and locations of mental-health professionals, social workers, and certain other professionals who had evaluated, examined, treated, or met with either child. The court ruled that the request was not a contention interrogatory. Although Gonzalez had withdrawn an affirmative defense based on grave risk of harm, the court noted that Gonzalez had reserved the right to seek protective or ameliorative measures, making the children’s mental health and well-being potentially relevant.

The court narrowed the period covered by the request to January 1, 2022, through the present. Gonzalez could describe locations generally, such as a doctor’s office in Berlin, and could give approximate dates for repeated interactions. With those limits, Gonzalez was ordered to answer to the best of the available ability.

Interrogatory No. 7

This interrogatory sought every instance during the parties’ relationship in which Gonzalez contended that Pitz coerced or abused Gonzalez or the children. The court ordered Gonzalez to identify all specific instances intended to be used at trial and to provide a general description of the alleged coercion or abuse. Gonzalez could rely on the existing response if it complied with that ruling or serve an amended response by the deadline.

The court also stated that if Pitz’s counsel specifically asked Gonzalez at trial about other alleged instances, Gonzalez would not be barred from identifying additional instances in response to those questions.

Request for Production No. 4

This request concerned documents related to Gonzalez’s expert witnesses. Gonzalez had stated that all documents relied on by the experts had been produced. The court ordered production of all documents provided to the experts by Gonzalez or counsel. Pitz could ask the experts about other documents they reviewed, and Gonzalez had to cooperate with reasonable requests for specific documents after, or when feasible during, the expert depositions.

Gonzalez also had to produce any expert engagement agreements but did not have to produce other billing or timekeeping materials because Gonzalez represented that the experts were working without payment. The experts had to identify relevant publications and court proceedings if they had not already done so. Copies of all publications and transcripts were not required, but Gonzalez had to cooperate with requests for specific materials that Pitz could not obtain from readily accessible public records.

Request for Production No. 5

This request sought relevant communications by Gonzalez. Gonzalez argued that the communications either had not been withheld or deleted or could not be searched because of concerns about electronic-device access and tracking. The court stated that a party generally need not produce nonexistent documents and may rely on a declaration that production is complete after a diligent search. But the court found the circumstances concerning enough to require a search.

Gonzalez was ordered to conduct a diligent search of the electronic devices and produce responsive records that had not already been produced. If Gonzalez would not turn on the devices personally, Gonzalez could hire a forensic specialist to conduct the search and had to produce the documents by August 18, 2025. Gonzalez would bear that cost unless Gonzalez filed a motion supported by evidence showing that Pitz had sought covert access to the devices. In that event, the court stated that it could shift the cost to Pitz and consider other sanctions.

The court separately ordered Pitz to refrain from seeking remote access to or tracking the location of Gonzalez’s electronic devices. Any motion concerning covert access could be filed no later than seven days after testimony at trial concluded.

Disposition

The court ordered further discovery responses and production as described above. This was a discovery order concerning the parties’ disputes over interrogatories, document requests, expert materials, and electronic-device searches. The opinion does not state a ruling on the merits of the underlying custody dispute.

The judge’s first name or initials are not clear in the supplied opinion text; the signature clearly identifies the surname as Cisneros.