Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Riley v. PK Management, LLC

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 5, 2019

LEORA RILEY, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
PK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Teresa J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 122). Plaintiffs seek an order compelling all Defendants to produce documents responsive to a request in Plaintiffs' Second Document Request seeking information about each Defendant's net worth. Defendants oppose the motion.[1] For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

         I. Requested Discovery

         Plaintiffs served their Second Documents Requests on each Defendant on December 7, 2018. These requests include the following:

         REQUEST NO. 55:[2] For each tax/fiscal year from 2008 to present, produce a copy of documents outlining YOUR net worth, including the following:

a. Balance sheets;
b. Income statements;
c. Cash flow statements;
d. Statements of shareholders' (and/or members') equity;
e. Profit and loss statements;
f. Financial statements; and,
g. Income tax returns filed with the IRS.

         Each Defendant objected to the request on various grounds. PK Management, LLC (PK) asserts the request is overly broad, not limited in time or scope, seeks confidential documents, [3]and seeks irrelevant information. Central Park Investors, LLC (Investors) objects on grounds of relevancy, proportionality, and overbreadth in temporal scope. Aspen Companies Management, LLC (Aspen) and Central Park Holdings, LLC (Holdings) assert the request is premature because the information is relevant only to punitive damages and not appropriate in the certification stage.[4]

         Plaintiffs conferred with Defendants, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and D. Kan.37.2, and Plaintiffs have timely filed this motion.

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets out the general scope of discovery. As amended in 2015, it provides as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.