Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market

Background

Aasir Azzarmi filed this case representing himself. He asserted one claim for defamation per se against Key Food Stores Co-Operative Inc. and unidentified employees. He alleged that employees at Key Food’s 55 Fulton Market store falsely accused him of theft in front of other customers on October 20, 2019, and later refused to admit him to the store.

At an initial case-management conference, the court authorized Azzarmi to serve initial questions, known as interrogatories, only to identify potential witnesses and the unidentified employees. Key Food later identified three current or former employees in its initial disclosures. Azzarmi served 25 interrogatories, some exceeding the limits in the court’s order. Key Food served written responses, but its answers were not verified under oath. Key Food also stated that it would provide a list of employees working at the store on October 20, 2019, but produced a list for August 20, 2019.

Azzarmi filed a motion seeking to compel answers, strike Key Food’s responses, obtain permission to serve additional interrogatories, stay further proceedings, and impose sanctions. The requested sanctions included monetary sanctions and an adverse liability judgment against Key Food.

Court’s analysis

Before asking the court to compel discovery, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires a party to confer or attempt to confer in good faith with the opposing party to resolve the dispute without court action. Local Civil Rule 37.2 and the court’s individual practices also required a party to request an informal discovery conference before filing a formal discovery motion. The court explained that representing oneself does not excuse compliance with these procedural rules.

The court found that Azzarmi did not make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute. He sent an email on a Saturday calling defense counsel deceitful, attached what appeared to be an already prepared motion, and demanded a response by a specific date or he would file the motion. Although Key Food’s counsel responded and invited Azzarmi to explain any specific objections, Azzarmi did not continue the discussion. He also did not request the required informal discovery conference before filing his motion.

Because Azzarmi failed to follow the required discovery procedures, the court did not reach the merits of his allegations that Key Food’s responses violated the discovery rules or that sanctions were warranted.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Moses denied Azzarmi’s motion without prejudice to renewal after compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), Local Civil Rule 37.2, and the court’s individual practices.

The court gave Key Food one week to verify its interrogatory answers under oath, produce a list of employees who worked at the 55 Fulton Market store on October 20, 2019, and consider whether to update its initial disclosures based on an October 21, 2019 email attached to Azzarmi’s papers. The court also directed Azzarmi to advise whether he was physically in Inglewood, California, when he signed his declaration and proof of service.

The court stated that Key Food did not need to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, or 25 because those questions exceeded the court’s limits, had been adequately answered, or both. If Azzarmi believed additional information was required for the remaining interrogatories, he could request an informal conference after first conferring or attempting to confer in good faith with Key Food.