Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chinitz v. Intero, Judge Cousins denied Intero’s request to subpoena Zillow because it was late, unsupported by good cause, and disproportionate.
Intero Real Estate Services could not serve the requested subpoenas on nonparty Zillow Group, Inc.; the order concerned discovery in the plaintiffs’ case against Intero.
What happened
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Intero asked to serve subpoenas on nonparty Zillow Group, Inc. The request concerned information that Intero said could show that the plaintiffs had taken steps to sell their homes.
The court found the request untimely because the subpoena deadline had passed. Although the court could allow a late request for a sufficient reason, it found that Intero had not shown one. The court also viewed Intero’s explanation as speculative and found the request to be an overly broad search that was not proportional to the case’s needs.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins denied Intero’s request to serve the subpoenas on Zillow.
The detailed version
- Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services · No. 5:18-cv-05623
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 20, 2021
Background
The parties filed a joint letter brief about a discovery dispute. Defendant Intero Real Estate Services sought permission to serve subpoenas on nonparty Zillow Group, Inc. The court noted that the deadline for serving subpoenas had been June 21, 2021, making Intero’s request untimely.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it could still allow an untimely discovery request if the requesting party showed good cause, meaning a sufficient reason for missing the deadline. The court found that Intero had not made that showing.
Intero argued that the subpoenas were necessary to show that the plaintiffs had taken steps related to selling their homes. Intero said this evidence would support its affirmative defenses and undermine the plaintiffs’ credibility. The court stated that the claimed fact might be true, but found that Intero’s explanation was speculative. Intero reasoned that because agents had the plaintiffs’ phone numbers, the plaintiffs must have been seeking to establish relationships with agents after filling out a “contact us” form. The court stated that if the agents obtained the plaintiffs’ information from Zillow, Intero should have been able to tell the court that directly rather than speculate.
The court concluded that the proposed discovery was a fishing expedition and was not proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Proportional discovery must be appropriately related to the needs and circumstances of the case.
Disposition
The court denied Intero’s request to serve subpoenas on Zillow. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the lawsuit.
Judge
The order was signed by Nathanael M. Cousins, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.