Pizarro v. Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp.

Background

After a May 20, 2022 status conference, the court directed the parties to submit letters addressing their remaining discovery disputes. The parties submitted two letters, although the court said they did not comply with the judge’s individual rules and conference instructions. The order resolved the disputes described in those letters.

Discovery concerning communications between Pizarro and Castro

The defendants asked the court to reconsider discovery demands concerning communications between Maria Jose Pizarro and Jose E. Castro, who was described as a witness for Pizarro and a third-party defendant. In an earlier order, the court had required Pizarro, her lawyer, Castro, and Castro’s lawyer to submit sworn statements confirming that they had diligently searched for responsive documents, made full production, and had no additional responsive documents within their possession, custody, or control. They submitted the required statements, and Pizarro produced ten additional responsive documents.

The court declined to compel further production. The defendants argued that inconsistencies among the produced communications showed that the sworn statements were untrue. Pizarro and Castro responded that some communications had been deleted or lost after electronic devices were reset. The court found that the defendants’ request for access to all of Pizarro’s and Castro’s phone records and computers was too broad and amounted to a fishing expedition. It denied the defendants’ request for additional discovery on this issue.

Discovery demands directed to Pizarro

The defendants sought an order compelling Pizarro and Castro to produce documents in several categories, including bank-account information, tax statements, wire transfers, other income, communications concerning money sent abroad, communications with sixteen people or entities, and complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other authorities. The defendants also newly sought documents under Requests Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 20.

The court declined to order production under Requests Nos. 6, 8, 9, or 20 because the defendants had not raised those requests in their initial motion to compel. As to the other requests, the court said the defendants’ counterclaims alleged that Pizarro and other people stole money from the defendants’ business and sent it to contacts abroad. The defendants therefore would have to prove that money belonging to them had been misappropriated. The court found that the requested bank information, tax statements, wire transfers, other income information, information about non-employment payments, communications concerning Christian Darren, and complaints to authorities would not show whether money had been improperly taken from the defendants.

The court also found that the request for all communications between Pizarro and sixteen people or entities during a period lasting more than seven years was excessively broad and would impose an unreasonable burden with little reason to believe it would produce useful evidence. The court noted that Rule 26 still required Pizarro to produce documents, information, or other evidence that she knew about and might use to support her claims or defenses. Any such material that she had not produced within two weeks of the order would not be considered in a summary-judgment motion and would not be admitted at trial.

Discovery demands directed to Castro and Eladio Castro Productions, Inc.

The defendants identified six categories of information they claimed they still needed from Castro and Eladio Castro Productions, Inc.: bank information; documents about income-producing activities; documents about non-employment payments; documents concerning businesses in which Castro had an interest; agreements between Castro’s company and Pizarro; and receipts for money transmissions by Castro or his company on Pizarro’s behalf.

The court found that the defendants had not sufficiently explained how the requested discovery was connected to their counterclaims or shown that the material remained unproduced. Castro represented that he had already made, or would make, certain bank statements available. The court directed Castro to produce the identified bank statements to the extent necessary, but stated that no further bank-statement production from Castro or Eladio Castro Productions, Inc. was necessary. The court found the requests concerning income-producing activities, non-employment payments, and businesses in which Castro had an interest too broad and insufficiently connected to whether money originally belonged to the defendants. Castro represented that he had already produced the documents covered by the requests for agreements and money-transmission receipts, so the court found no need to order further production of those materials.

Sanctions

Pizarro asked the court to impose sanctions under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the defendants’ counsel. She referred to alleged repeated misrepresentations but identified only a statement that she had sent discovery by paper mail rather than electronically. The defendants maintained that the statement was accurate. The court held that this single disputed example was not enough to impose Rule 11 sanctions and denied Pizarro’s request.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ requests to compel production were denied and that Pizarro’s request to impose Rule 11 sanctions was denied. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 136 and 139.