KENNETH DINKINS, Plaintiff, v. GERALDINE SCHINZEL, Defendant Case No. 2:17-cv-01089-JAD-GWF United States District Court, D. Nevada Filed June 11, 2018 Counsel Kenneth Dinkins, Las Vegas, NV, pro se. Geraldine Schinzel, Waterford, MI, pro se. Foley Jr., George, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (ECF No. 102), filed on March 16, 2018. Defendant filed her Opposition (ECF No. 104) on March 20, 2018 and Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 105) on March 23, 2018. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 106), filed on March 26, 2018. Defendant filed her Response (ECF No. 107) on March 29, 2018 and Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 108) on April 3, 2018. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties 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, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” The party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that it is irrelevant, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. Graham v. Casey's General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-4 (S.D. Ind. 2000); Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2016 WL 54202, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2016); Izzo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 593532, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2016). When a request is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, however, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request. Desert Valley Painting & Drywall, Inv. v. United States, 2012 WL 4792913, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 9, 2012) (citing Marook v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 259 F.R.D. 388, 394-95 (N.D. Iowa 2009)). I. Requests for Production. Plaintiff propounded his fourth set of requests for production. Request for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 47, 48, and 49 relate to Plaintiff's purchase and sale of real property, Plaintiff's real property transactions with third parties, lawsuits against Plaintiff, and fines or punishment administered against Plaintiff by the Secretaries of State of Arizona and Nevada. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's requests as overbroad and oppressive. Further, Defendant argues that such documents are readily available to Plaintiff and that Defendant does not have such documents. Request Nos. 13 and 16 of Plaintiff's eighth set of requests for production also relate to tax liens and the title of property Defendant purchased from Summit Ventures LLC. See Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 106), 5. Defendant refers Plaintiff to already produced documents and states that she does not have any additional responsive documents. If Defendant has documents that she has not already produced relating to tax liens on Plaintiff's real property, tax liens on Summit Ventures LLC's real property, or real property transactions between Plaintiff and Defendant or Defendant and Summit Ventures LLC, she is instructed to produce such documents within fourteen days of the issuance of this order. A responding party must make a reasonable inquiry to determine whether responsive documents exist. Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 485 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Marti v. Baires, 2012 WL 2029720, at *19–20, (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2012)). “A party, however, is not required to create a document where none exists.” Id. If Defendant does not possess such documents, no further response is required. Plaintiff's requests for production relating to lawsuits, fines, and punishment against him are not proportional to the needs of this case and, therefore, Plaintiff is not required to respond. *2 Documents are deemed to be in a party's control, if he has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand. A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 189 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The responding party has an affirmative duty to seek information reasonably available to him from his employees, agents, or others subject to his control. Id. (citing Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223 (N.D. Ind. 1992)). See also Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 485 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Envtech, Inc. v. Suchard, 2013 WL 4899085, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 11, 2013); and Ueda v. Cavett and Fulton, PC, 2015 WL 13661654, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16 2015). A party cannot be compelled to produce documents that it insists do not exist or which are not in its possession, custody or control. Acosta v. JY Harvesting, Inc., 2017 WL 3437654, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017). If the party determines upon reasonable inquiry that responsive documents do not exist, “ ‘it should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.’ ” Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. at 485. Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 45 asks Defendant to produce “all emails, copies of bank wires, advertisement, deeds, agreements that relate to the 20 acre parcel of land that the Defendant was purchasing from a seller on ebay.” See Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 102), 14. Defendant states that she does not have documents and does not have access to such documents. She does not appear to object to this request on any other basis. It is unclear whether Defendant made a reasonable inquiry as to Plaintiff's request. Defendant is instructed to amend her response to Request No. 45, within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, to include a description of her inquiry to determine whether responsive documents exist. II. Requests for Admission Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 8 and 9 of his fourth set of requests for admission are unclear and Defendant is not required to provide an amended response unless Plaintiff clarifies and serves amended requests for admission in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 of his fourth set of requests for admission pertain to a Michigan state real estate investigator. Defendant objects to these requests as irrelevant and oppressive and Plaintiff argues that his requests relate to a real estate transaction of property located in Arizona that is the subject of Defendant's fraud, breach of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing counterclaims. However, the relevancy of such requests are not readily apparent and Plaintiff fails to articulate how his requests are relevant to his defenses against Defendant's counterclaims. Therefore, Plaintiff is not required to answer Requests for Admission Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52. Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 9, 10, and 11 of his fifth set of requests for admission relate to a stipulation and order. Defendant objects to these requests as irrelevant, harassing, annoying, and oppressive. The stipulation and order that is the subject of the requests appears to be between Defendant and the Michigan Board of Real Estate Brokers. Such requests are not proportional to the needs of the case and Defendant, therefore, is not required to answer Requests for Admission Nos. 9, 10, and 11 of his fifth set of requests for admission. Plaintiff's Requests for Admission No. 12 is duplicative and Defendant is not required to respond. Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 16 relates to when Defendant informed Plaintiff that she was a licensed real estate agent. Defendant objects to such request as irrelevant, harassing, annoying, and oppressive and Plaintiff argues that such request is relevant to Defendant's counterclaims. Again Plaintiff fails to articulate the relevancy of Defendant's status as a real estate agent to his defenses to her counterclaims. Therefore, Defendant is not required to respond to Request for Admission No. 16. Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 26 is unclear and incomprehensible. If Plaintiff wishes to clarify and serve amended requests for admission, he may do so in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, *3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (ECF No. 102) is granted, in part, and denied, in part in accordance with the foregoing provisions.