United States of America v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California Case No. CV 20-6314-CAS (KS) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed June 17, 2024 Stevenson, Karen L., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: ORDER RE: VICTOR NOVAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT DEMANDS AND INTERROGATORIES FROM CLAIMANT GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT [DKT NO. 249] *1 Before the Court is Claimant Victor Franco Noval's (“Noval's”) Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Document Demands and Interrogatories From Claimant the Government of the State of Kuwait (“Kuwait”) filed on April 29, 2024 (the “Motion”), along with a Declaration of Ronald Richards, Esq. (“Richards Decl.”) and related exhibits. (Dkt. No. 249.) On May 6, 2024, the Government of Kuwait filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition” or “Oppo.”). (Dkt. No. 252.) On May 9, 2024, the Court heard oral argument and took the Motion under submission.[1] For the reasons outlined below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In previous discovery orders, the Court outlined the procedural history of this civil forfeiture action; therefore, the Court assumes the parties are familiar with that background and will not repeat it here. (See Dkt. No. 271.) The Motion is one in a trilogy of discovery motions filed by the parties just prior to the April, 17, 2024 close of fact discovery in order to be heard before the June 17, 2024 deadline to hear motions. (See Dkt. No. 212.) THE MOTION A. Noval's Positions Noval seeks an order compelling Kuwait to serve further responses to certain of “Noval's first set of interrogatories and first set of requests for production of documents and to produce documents responsive to the document demands” to which Kuwait previously only objected. (Motion at 2.) Noval's requests seek information concerning: (1) what authority Khaled J. Al-Sabah (“KAS”) and other Kuwait officials had to wire the subject funds to the United States; (2) whether any Noval Claimants “knew or should have known that the funds were wired in violation of Kuwait law or without authority”; and (3) “what restitution Kuwait has received from KAS and the other Kuwait officials who wired the subject funds.” (Id.) Noval argues that the discovery is relevant to Noval and other Noval Claimants' innocent owner defense and Kuwait's equitable defenses. (Id.) Specifically, Noval contends that information sought in the disputed discovery requests is relevant to Noval Claimants' “statutory proportionality defense,” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(g) as well as to Kuwait's equitable defenses of offset, recoupment, and unjust enrichment. (Id. at 5-6.) Noval argues that because Kuwait's affirmative defenses “allege equitable defenses based on Kuwait's alleged actual harm, losses or injury,” this makes discovery concerning restitution or repayment of alleged embezzled funds by KAS and the other Kuwait officials relevant and discoverable. (Id. at 6.) B. State of Kuwait's Opposition Kuwait argues that the discovery Noval seeks is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case” given that the highest court of Kuwait, the Court of Cassation, “has found KAS and his co-conspirators guilty of embezzling the funds used to acquire the Defendant Assets.” (Oppo. at 1.) Kuwait emphasizes Noval Claimants are now judicially estopped from asserting that Kuwait is not the owner of the accounts from which the funds at issue were sent because Noval Claimants joined in Plaintiff's motion to strike Al-Sabah's claim for lack of standing and in so doing, took the position that Kuwait is the undisputed owner of the subject accounts. (Id. (citing Dkt. Nos. 251 at n.4; 94; 110-11).) *2 Kuwait further objects to the discovery on the ground that it calls for legal conclusions. Insofar as Noval seeks discovery concerning what “authority” KAS and co-conspirators had over the subject funds and accounts at issue, “including documents evidencing or describing the same,” Kuwait argues that such discovery calls for legal conclusions and requires expert opinion that should be addressed with expert discovery. (Oppo. at 2-3.) Finally, Kuwait objects that the interrogatories are compound and include subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories and, therefore, exceed the number of interrogatories permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). (Id. at 3.) Kuwait points to Interrogatory No. 21, for example, as having 33 discrete subparts. (Id. at 5.) C. The Discovery Requests and Responses in Dispute As detailed in the Motion, at issue are the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”): Special Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 Interrogatory No. 9: What authority did KAS have from YOU or pursuant to Kuwaiti law with respect to the AUB MAO Accounts and/or the funds therein. Interrogatory No. 10: What authority did AL-JASSAR have from YOU or pursuant to Kuwaiti law with respect to the AUB MAO Accounts and/or the funds therein. Interrogatory No. 11: What authority did AL-BAZ have from YOU or pursuant to Kuwaiti law with respect to the AUB MAO Accounts and/or the funds therein. Kuwait's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 11 are identical as follows: Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 11: In addition to the foregoing Objections to Definitions, the State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, deliberative process privilege, law enforcement privilege, state secrets privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory because it calls for legal conclusions about authority and Kuwaiti law. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is compound because it requires the State of Kuwait to state whether [KAS/AL-JASSAR/AL-BAZ] had authority (1) from the State of Kuwait with respect to the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS; (2) from the State of Kuwait with respect to the funds contained in the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS; (3) pursuant to Kuwaiti law with respect to the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS; and (4) pursuant to Kuwaiti law with respect to the funds contained in the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. (Richards Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D at pp. 9-13.) Special Interrogatory No. 12: Interrogatory No. 12: State all facts how YOU discovered the embezzlement committed by KAS as alleged in paragraph 41 of the [CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT] which states, “Beginning in or about 2010 and continuing onward, KUWAITI OFFICIAL 1, Kuwaiti OFFICIAL 2, MAO OFFICIAL 1, and others known and unknown (the “MOD Conspirators”) schemed to embezzle funds from MOD, including through certain of the AUB MAO Accounts, for their own personal use and gain,” and as admitted in paragraph 41 of YOUR ANSWER. (Id. at p. 13.) Response to Interrogatory No. 12: *3 [Kuwait restates general objections and Objections to Definitions as stated in response to interrogatory nos. 9-11.] The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory based on its use of the word “all” to the extent that identifying “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for legal conclusions about embezzlement. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is unduly burdensome, and because facts concerning how the State of Kuwait discovered KAS's unlawful acts are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at pp. 13-14.) Special Interrogatory Nos. 20, 21: Interrogatory No. 20: State all facts that describe the internal controls and oversight YOU used to monitor the TRANSFERS. Response to Interrogatory No. 20: [Kuwait restates general objections and Objections to Definitions as stated in response to interrogatory nos. 9-11 above.] The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory based on its use of the word “all” to the extent that identifying “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, and unduly burdensome based on its use of the terms “internal controls” and “oversight,” and because facts concerning the State of Kuwait's internal controls and oversight are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at p. 21.) Interrogatory No. 21: Identify by providing the name, title, address, telephone number, and email address of all YOUR officials, agents re representatives who approved or knew of the TRANSFERS at the time they were made or within thirty (3) days thereafter. the TRANSFERS. Response to Interrogatory No. 21: In addition to the foregoing Objections, the State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory based on its use of the word “all” to the extent that identifying “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and on the grounds it is compound because there are eleven (11) separate TRANSFERS for which Propounding Party elicits a response, and for which each of those TRANSFERS, it requires the State of Kuwait to identify (1) all officials, agents, or representatives who approved each of the TRANSFERS; and (2) all officials, agents, representatives who knew of each of the TRANSFERS at the time they were made or within thirty (3) days thereafter. (Id. at p. 22.) Noval's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents: RFP Nos. 6-7 RFP No. 6: All DOCUMENTS evidencing or regarding YOUR oversight of the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. RFP No. 7: All DOCUMENTS evidencing or regarding YOUR oversight of the AUB MOD ACCOUNTS between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. Kuwait's responses to RFP Nos. 6-7 are identical as follows: Response to RFP Nos. 6-7: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions it stated in response to the interrogatories listed above.] The State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory based on its use of the word “all” to the extent that identifying “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objections to this request as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, and unduly burdensome based on its use of the term “oversight,” and because documents evidencing or regarding the State of Kuwait's management or internal controls over accounts are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. (Richards Decl., Ex. C. at pp. 8-9.) RFP Nos. 11-14 RFP No. 11: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and KAS regarding or concerning the TRANSFERS. *4 RFP No. 12: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and AL-NASSAR regarding or concerning the TRANSFERS. RFP No. 13: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and AL-BAZ regarding or concerning the TRANSFERS. Responses to RFP Nos. 11, 12, and 13 are identical: In addition to the foregoing Objections to Definitions, the State of Kuwait objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, deliberative process privilege, law enforcement privilege, state secrets privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery. The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it seeks information not within the State of Kuwait's possession, custody, or control. The State of Kuwait objects to this request based on its use of the word “all” to the extent that identifying “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome, and because it does not seek information relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case, to the extent it seeks communications made in connection with any Kuwait investigations or court proceedings, consistent with the Court's Minute Order re: Telephonic Conference Concerning Discovery Dispute – Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics for Government of the State of Kuwait Testimony dated October 20, 2023, ECF No. 189. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, and unduly burdensome based on its failure to specify the time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the State of Kuwait will produce responsive, nonprivileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that can be located after a reasonable search, and to the extent such communications occurred between January 1, 2012, and April 30, 2015. RFP No. 14: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and KAS regarding or concerning the DEFENDANT ASSETS. Kuwait's objections to RFP No.14 were largely identical to the objections Kuwait asserted in response to RFPs Nos. 11-13. However, Kuwait further responded to RFP No. 14 as follows: Subject to and without waiting the foregoing objections, the State of Kuwait will produce responsive, nonprivileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that can be located after a reasonable search, and to the extent such communications occurred between January 1, 2012 and November 18, 2019, the date on which KAS concluded his official government service, and are unrelated to any Kuwait investigation or court proceeding. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) RFP Nos. 16-18 RFP No. 16: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of KAS's transfer of any funds from the MAO-MOD ACCOUNTS RFP No. 17: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of AL-JASSAR'S transfer of any funds from the MAO-MOD ACCOUNT. RFP No. 18: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of AL-BAZ'S transfer of any funds from the MAO-MOD ACCOUNTS Kuwait's Responses to RFP Nos. 16-18 are identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, and unduly burdensome based on its use of the terms “oversight” and “management,” and because documents evidencing the State of Kuwait's oversight and management of accounts are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. *5 (Id. at pp. 16-18.) RFP Nos. 19-21 RFP No. 19: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of KAS's transfer of any funds from the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. RFP No. 20: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of ALJASSAR's [sic] transfer of any funds from the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. RFP No. 21: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of AL-BAZ's transfer of any funds from the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. Responses to RFP Nos. 19-21 were identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, and unduly burdensome based on its use of the terms “oversight” and “management,” and because documents evidencing the State of Kuwait's oversight and management of accounts are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at pp. 18-20.) RFP Nos. 22-24 RFP No. 22: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of KAS's transfer of any funds from any of YOUR accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait. RFP No. 23: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of ALJASSAR's [sic] transfer of any funds from any of YOUR accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait. RFP No. 24: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR oversight and management of AL-BAZ's transfer of any funds from any of YOUR accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait. Responses to RFP Nos. 22-24 were identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, and unduly burdensome based on its use of the terms “oversight” and “management,” and its request for documents concerning “any ... accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait,” to the extent it seeks documents concerning accounts other than AUB x34760 and AUB x6496, consistent with the Court's Minute Order re: Telephonic Conference Concerning Discovery Dispute – Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics for Government of the State of Kuwait Testimony dated October 20, 2023, ECF No. 189. The State of Kuwait objects to this request because documents evidencing the State of Kuwait's oversight and management of accounts are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. *6 (Id. at pp. 20-23.) RFP Nos. 25-27 RFP No. 25: All DOCUMENTS stating, evidencing or describing the authority that KAS had from YOU or pursuant to Kuwait law with respect to the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. RFP No. 26: All DOCUMENTS stating, evidencing or describing the authority that ALJASSAR [sic] had from YOU or pursuant to Kuwait law with respect to the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. RFP No. 27: All DOCUMENTS stating, evidencing or describing the authority that AL-BAZ had from YOU or pursuant to Kuwait law with respect to the AUB MAO ACCOUNTS. Responses to RFP Nos. 25-27 were identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request because it calls for legal conclusions about legal authority and Kuwaiti law. (Id. at pp. 23-24.) RFP Nos. 28-33 RFP No. 28: All restitution orders issued against KAS by YOU or any Kuwaiti court relating or as a result of the embezzlement alleged in the CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT and in the KUWAIT ANSWER. RFP No. 29: All restitution orders issued against AL-BAZ by YOU or any Kuwaiti court relating or as a result of the embezzlement alleged in the CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT and in the KUWAIT ANSWER. RFP No. 30: All restitution orders issued against AL-JASSAR by YOU or any Kuwaiti court relating or as a result of the embezzlement alleged in the CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT and in the KUWAIT ANSWER. Responses to RFP Nos. 28-30 are identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request because it calls for legal conclusions about embezzlement. The State of Kuwait objects. RFP Nos. 31-33 RFP No. 31: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any agreements by KAS to repay the funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS. RFP No. 32: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any agreements by AL-JASSAR to repay the funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS. RFP No. 33: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any agreements by AL-BAZ to repay the funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS. Responses to RFP Nos. 31-33 are identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objections to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome, and because Agreements by [KAS, AL-JASSAR, and AL-BAZ] to repay the funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS have no effect on the forfeitability of the Defendant Assets or the Noval Claimants' purported entitlement to such assets and therefore are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. *7 RFP Nos. 34-36 RFP No. 34: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments or restitution made by KAS to YOU for the embezzlement alleged in the CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT and in the KUWAIT ANSWER or for funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS. RFP No. 35: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments or restitution made by AL-JASSAR to YOU for the embezzlement alleged in the CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT and in the KUWAIT ANSWER or for funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS. RFP No. 36: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments or restitution made by AL-BAZ to YOU for the embezzlement alleged in the CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT and in the KUWAIT ANSWER or for funds that were the subject of the TRANSFERS. Responses to RFP Nos. 34-36 are identical: [Kuwait restates the general objections and Objections to Definitions.] The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for expert opinion or testimony because such discovery is premature at this stage of the proceedings, and the State of Kuwait reserves the right to rely on expert opinion or testimony at the appropriate time as needed. The State of Kuwait objects to the request based on its use of the words “any” and “all” to the extent that identifying “any” and “all” is too burdensome. The State of Kuwait objects to this request to the extent it calls for legal conclusions about embezzlement. The State of Kuwait objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome, and because payments or restitution made by [KAS, AL-JASSAR, and AL-BAZ] to the State of Kuwait have no effect on the forfeitability of the Defendant Assets or the Noval Claimants' purported entitlement to such assets and therefore are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at pp. 28-30.) LEGAL STANDARD A party may obtain discovery concerning any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). When determining if the proportionality requirement has been met, courts are to consider six factors, namely, 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 likely benefit. Id. Relevant information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id. District courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). When considering a motion to compel, the Court has similarly broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallet, 296 F.3d at 751). DISCUSSION A. Noval Claimants' Special Interrogatories Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discredit subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass'n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 586 (“[E]very interrogatory which is served, including any discrete subparts, shall be counted against the numerical limit.”). 1. Special Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 *8 These interrogatories seek information concerning any “authority” from Kuwait or pursuant to Kuwait law that KAS, AL-JASSAR, and/or AL-BAZ, respectively, had with respect to the AUB MAO Accounts. Noval Claimants maintain that the information is “directly relevant to the Plaintiff's claims of forfeiture ... that the Kuwaiti Officials violated Kuwait law and embezzled these funds.” (Motion at 8.) Noval Claimants argue that “there are official Kuwait letters granting these same KUWAIT OFFICIALS authority over these bank accounts which contradict Plaintiff's and Kuwait's positions in this case.” (Id.) Kuwait objects that the interrogatories are compound, prematurely seek information that requires expert opinion testimony, and call for legal conclusions on issues of “pure law” as to “authority and Kuwaiti law.” (Oppo. at 3.) As an initial matter, the information that Noval seeks in Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 is relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in the case and proportionate to the needs of the case insofar as each interrogatory seeks information regarding what, if any, authority these three Kuwait officials had to access the Subject Account. Contrary to Kuwait's objections, the interrogatories do not call for mere legal conclusions. Rather, Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 seek information concerning the factual basis on which KAS, Al-JASSAR, and/or AL-BAZ had access to the subject accounts. The definition of “authority” is “the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience.” Authority, CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2011). While the nature of the “authority” at issue here may derive from Kuwait rules or statutes, courts in this district recognize that “the fact that an interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion is not grounds for an objection.” Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp.2d 1012, 1029 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010) (string citations omitted); see also Campbell v. Washington, No. C08-0983-JCC, 2009 WL 577599, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2009) (“An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.”) In addition, the Court notes that in its opposition to Noval Claimants' motion to compel further Rule 30(b)(6) testimony by Kuwait on topics concerning KAS and alleged co-conspirators' authority over the AUB MAO accounts, Kuwait represented the topics concerning any authority of KAS and alleged co-conspirators with respect to these accounts were duplicative of interrogatories the Noval Claimants served seeking the same information, and for which “the Noval Claimants ... agreed to accept a consolidated response from the State of Kuwait” specifically directed at “all facts currently known by the State of Kuwait which suggest the Noval Claimants knew or should have known the transfers were embezzled from the State of Kuwait.” (Dkt. No. 243 at 8.) Thus, the Court concludes that Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 seek factual information fully consistent with information that Kuwait has already agreed to provide. The Court also finds that these interrogatories are not impermissibly compound. However, to the extent Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 seek information concerning AUB MOA accounts other than the specific AUB MOA accounts from which the subject funds were wired to the United States, the discovery is neither relevant to any claim or defense at issue in the case, nor proportionate to the needs of this action. On that basis, the requests are overly broad. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED with respect to Noval's Interrogatory Nos. 9-11. If Kuwait has not already provided its consolidated response, Kuwait shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, serve responses to these interrogatories limited to the specific AUB MOA account from which the funds at issue in this in rem civil forfeiture action were wired to the United States. *9 Alternatively, if Kuwait contends that the information responsive to these interrogatories is already available to Noval in the Plaintiff's extensive document production, then, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Kuwait must identify by bates-identifier the material it believes is responsive to these requests. 2. Interrogatory No. 12 This request asks Kuwait to identify “all facts” about how it discovered the embezzlement by KAS and alleged co-conspirators. Noval argues that the information is relevant to whether Kuwait knew of and consented to KAS's actions alleged in the CMVC. (Motion at 9.) Kuwait responds that the information about how Kuwait discovered the embezzlement is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. (Oppo. at 3-4.) Further, Kuwait argues that “the issues of knowledge, consent, and authority are already covered exhaustively by other requests[.]” (Id. at 4.) The Court agrees with Kuwait that the request is facially overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require Kuwait to disclose facts concerning its internal investigation, prosecution, and sentencing of KAS and alleged co-conspirators. Information about those internal proceedings is not relevant or proportional to the needs of this civil forfeiture action. This is particularly so where Noval appears to have conceded that “Kuwait is the owner of the allegedly misappropriated funds[.]” (Dkt. No. 144 at 2.) How Kuwait discovered the fraud is not relevant to Noval's innocent owner defense and requiring Kuwait to provide such information is not proportionate to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, the Motion is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 12. Kuwait need not provide any further response to Interrogatory No. 12. 3. Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 Interrogatory No. 20 asks Kuwait to “state all facts” describing the “internal controls and oversight” used to monitor the transfers at issue. Noval argues the information about internal controls Kuwait had in place for the transfer of funds is relevant to whether Kuwait knew about, consented to, or “whether the KUWAIT OFFICIALS had authority to make the transfers.” (Motion at 9.) Noval also contends the information is relevant to the “innocent owner” defense. (Id.) Interrogatory No. 21 requires Kuwait to identify “all” Kuwait officials, agents, or representatives who approved or knew of the transfers when made or within thirty days thereafter. Here too, Noval contends that this information is relevant to the “innocent owner” defense and whether “Kuwait “knew about the transfers, consented to the transfers or whether KUWAIT OFFICIALS had authority to make the transfers.” (Motion at 9.) Kuwait responds that the information is “not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case.” (Oppo. at 4.) The Court agrees. First, Kuwait emphasizes that its Rule “30(b)(6) witness, Nawaf Al Samhan, testified at length during his deposition that these accounts were not properly registered, meaning they evaded oversight by the State of Kuwait.” (Id.) Thus, discovery regarding “internal controls and oversight” have no relevance to Noval's innocent owner defense and further response to Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 would require information duplicative of discovery that Noval has already obtained. Not only do these interrogatories seek information that is not relevant, to the extent Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 purport to require Kuwait to “state all facts” on these topics, the Court finds these discovery requests are overbroad. *10 Kuwait further objects to Interrogatory No. 21 as compound and exceeding Rule 33's 25 interrogatory limit because the interrogatory has 33 discrete subparts. (Oppo. at 5.) Kuwait argues that the interrogatory asks for information on each of 11 separate transfers, and for each transfer, Noval seeks the identity of “all officials, agents, or representatives who approved each transfer, all officials, agents, or representatives who knew of each transfer when they were made, and all officials, agents, or representatives who knew of each transfer within 30 days after it occurred.” (Id.) The Court concurs with Kuwait that this interrogatory with its subparts does, in fact, exceed Rule 33's 25-interrogatory limit and that Noval has not sought leave of court to serve interrogatories beyond the numerical limit. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED as to Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 21. No further response is required from Kuwait to Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 21. B. Noval Claimants' RFPs RFP Nos. 6-7 Kuwait's objections to RFP Nos. 6-7 are sustained. These requests seek “ALL” documents from 2012-2015 relating to Kuwait's “oversight” of the bank accounts at AUB and accounts at AUB “where those funds originated and were transferred from into the alleged secret/unregistered MOA-MOD Accounts.” (Motion at 10.) Kuwait objects that Noval's use of the word “ALL” is overbroad and burdensome and documents concerning oversight and internal controls over the multiple accounts are not relevant. The Court agrees. First, although Kuwait makes no showing to support its objection on burdensome grounds, the Court finds that the request for “ALL” documents concerning Kuwait's internal management of these accounts is overbroad. Indeed, Noval seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportionate to any claim or defense at issue in the action. Thus, the Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 6-7. No further response by Kuwait is required. RFP Nos. 11-14 These requests seek “ALL COMMUNICATIONS” between Kuwait and KAS, AL-JASSAR and AL-BAZ respectively, concerning the transfers at issue and the defendant assets. (Motion at 10.) Noval states that these documents are “relevant to see what Kuwait and the KUWAITI OFFICIALS represented to each other, admitted or said regarding the transfers internally which could be very different than the positions they have taken in this forfeiture action.” (Id.) Kuwait responds that it agreed to produce “non-privileged communications with Al-Sabah, Al-Jassar, and Al-Baz CONCERING THE TRANSFERS AT ISSUE OVER A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD MIRRORING THAT OF Interrogatory No 21, as well as communications with Al-Sabah prior to his termination concerning the Defendant Assets, assuming any records or archives for these individuals exists.” (Oppo at 6.) Kuwait also emphasizes that the search for responsive materials, if any, would require “the review in Arabic of sensitive emails of former high-ranking military officials” and would be more burdensome than fruitful because “Al-Sabah and his co-conspirators appear to have solely communicated about these matters by phone or via their personal email accounts.” (Id.) In addition, Kuwait represents that this information was part of a document production that “[Noval] received from Plaintiff over a year ago.” (Id.) Thus, Kuwait maintains that these requests “as a whole are unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this case” and asks that the Court not expand the time period for RFP Nos. 11-14 “beyond what the State of Kuwait has already agreed[.]” (Id.) The Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 11-14. However, Kuwait must confirm within fourteen (14) days of this Order that any responsive documents it previously agreed to produce for the limited time frame have been produced. If Kuwait contends that the responsive materials were previously produced in Plaintiff's production and are already in Noval's possession, Kuwait must, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, identify any such documents by bates-identifier. RFP Nos. 16-24 *11 These requests seek documents from Kuwait “evidencing” Kuwait's oversight and management of any funds transferred from the MAO-MOD accounts by KAS, Al-Jassar, and Al-Baz (RFP Nos. 16-18); transfers of any funds from the Accounts into the MAO-MOD Accounts (RFP Nos. 19-21); and transfers of any funds from any of Kuwait's accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait (RFP Nos. 22-24). Noval argues that the information is relevant to its “innocent owner” defense as circumstantial evidence of whether the Noval Claimants should have known the funds were embezzled. (Motion at 11.) Kuwait objects that Kuwait's “internal controls and oversight over the unregistered Ahli United Bank accounts ending in x3470 and x6496 are not relevant to any party's claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case.” (Oppo. at 4.) Further, Kuwait points out that its Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Nawaf Al Samhan, testified at length during his deposition that these accounts were not properly registered. (Id.) The Court finds that information regarding control and oversight over the MAO-MOD accounts is not relevant or proportionate to any claim or defense at issue in the case. Unlike information sought concerning the particular authority KAS, AL JASSAR, and AL-BAZ may have had to access the specific funds at issue, these RFPs go well beyond claims or defenses relevant to this in rem action and would ostensibly require Kuwait to produce documents—likely in Arabic—concerning Kuwait's banking policies and procedures writ large as it pertains to the MAO-MOD accounts. Furthermore, to the extent RFP Nos. 22-24 seek documents concerning the transfer of “any funds from any of [Kuwait's] accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait,” (emphasis added), the requests are vastly overbroad and seek information that is neither relevant nor proportionate to any claim or defense in the action. According to Noval, the requests may possibly find “circumstantial evidence of whether the Noval Claimants should have known the funds were embezzled.” (Motion at 11.) But while the scope of discovery is broad, Rule 26(b)(1) does not countenance the kind of speculative fishing expedition called for in these document requests. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 16-24. No further response is required. RFP Nos. 25-27 Noval seeks documents evidencing the “authority” that KAS, Al-JASSAR, and Al-BAZ had from Kuwait with respect to the AUB MAO accounts. (Richards Decl., Ex C.) These requests parallel the information sought in Interrogatory Nos. 9-11. Here too, Kuwait objects that the requests seek information that is irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this case. Kuwait also objects that the requests are directed toward issues that are pure law. But, as discussed above regarding the related Interrogatory Nos. 9-11, the Court concludes that these requests seek documents that establish the factual basis on which KAS, Al-JASSAR, and/or AL-BAZ had access to the subject accounts. The requests do not seek legal conclusions or any analysis of Kuwait law. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 25-27. However, any production will be limited to documents concerning the specific AUB MOA accounts from which the subject funds were wired to the United States. RFP Nos. 28-36 These requests seek documents concerning any restitution orders (RFP Nos. 28-30), repayment agreements by KAS, AL-JASSAR, and/or AL-BAZ funds (RFP Nos. 31-33), or any payments or restitution made to Kuwait for the embezzlement alleged in the Consolidated Complaint and in Kuwait's Answer (RFP Nos. 34-36). Noval argues that the information is relevant to Kuwait's equitable defenses of offset, recoupment, and unjust enrichment. (Motion at 13.) Kuwait responds that none of the information sought is relevant to Plaintiff's forfeiture claims under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). (Oppo. at 6.) Moreover, Kuwait maintains that neither restitution nor repayment “have any bearing on Noval Claimants' purported entitlement to such assets as ‘innocent owners.’ ” (Oppo. at 7.) The Court agrees. *12 Noval cites no authority establishing the relevance of repayment or restitution in an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding. The Court found no such authority either. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “it is only after an owner is shown to have purchased with illegitimate asserts that the innocent owner defense even becomes an issue.” United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Dr., Alamo, Cal., 194 F.3d 1020, 1027 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 28-36. No further response is required. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined above, the Noval Claimants' Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 and RFP Nos. 25-27. The Motion is DENIED as to Interrogatory Nos. 12, 20-21 and RFP Nos. 6-7, 11-14, 16-24, and 28-36. Each party is to bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Following an informal discovery conference on these issues held on April 18, 2024, the Court ordered expedited briefing and that no reply briefs would be accepted. (Dkt. No. 237.)