RG Abrams Insurance v. The Law Office of C.R. Abrams

Background

Plaintiffs Robin Goltsman and R.G. Abrams Insurance sued former business partners and associates, including the Law Office of C.R. Abrams, Christopher R. Abrams, the Rinelli Law Group, Sarah Rinelli, Jack R. Mills, Robin Armstrong, and Cynthia Wooten. The complaint asserted a civil claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and several state-law claims, including fraud, interference with prospective economic advantage, conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

Goltsman alleged that the defendants took or used her client database, marketing software, computer, mail, and business calls after the parties’ business relationships deteriorated. The parties filed joint letter briefs presenting discovery disputes that the court described as largely resulting from their failure to meaningfully meet and confer before seeking judicial intervention.

Rulings on Discovery Requests

The order stated that plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery was granted in part and denied in part.

* The request for documents concerning money allegedly owed to Goltsman by Abrams or his law firm was denied because Abrams maintained that no responsive documents existed. * Requests for Abrams’s and Rinelli’s complete client databases were denied as grossly overbroad and potentially implicating the privacy interests of unrelated people and entities. * The request for “The Flintstone Trust” template was granted. Abrams was required to produce the template in its present form and as it existed on December 1, 2019. * Requests concerning Abrams’s first three counterclaims were granted in part. Defendants were ordered to provide a copy of the promissory note at issue, but the requests were otherwise denied. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer about narrowing those requests. * Requests concerning the parties’ business ventures, financial arrangements, and Goltsman’s compensation were denied because they were vague, overbroad, and not meaningfully narrowed through a meet-and-confer process. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and, if necessary, submit a shorter joint discovery letter explaining the remaining disputes. * A request to Mills for documents showing all sources of his income for the prior five years was denied as grossly overbroad. * Requests to Mills concerning his counterclaims were denied because their broad wording could encompass privileged communications with his lawyers and other unnecessary material. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about narrowing them. * Requests to Wooten concerning her counterclaims were denied for similar reasons, with an order to meet and confer about narrowing them. * The court deferred ruling on the request to Wooten for a mirror image of the hard drive of the allegedly stolen marketing computer. The parties were ordered to meet and confer, and defendants were required to state clearly whether they possessed the computer. * The request for defendants’ computation of damages was denied because defendants stated that they were not claiming damages.

Meet-and-Confer and Professionalism Requirements

The court emphasized that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the Northern District of California’s local rules require attorneys to communicate directly and discuss discovery disputes in good faith. The court criticized both sides’ filings, including plaintiffs’ broad and insufficiently tailored requests and defendants’ use of rhetorical questions and hyperbole instead of clear objections. It warned that future filings with similar defects could require the responsible parties or attorneys to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. The order did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims.