CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 166
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`CAIR FOUNDATION, INC., d/b/a
`COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC
`RELATIONS & CAIR,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ASMA LORI HAIDRI SAROYA a.k.a. LORI
`SAROYA, ASMA SAROYA, LORI HAIDRI,
`LORI HAIDRI-SAROYA, & LH,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No.: 0:21-cv-01267 (SRN/TNL)
`
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`Plaintiff CAIR Foundation Inc., d/b/a Council on American-Islamic Relations & CAIR
`
`(“CAIR”), hereby files this Opposition to Defendant, Asma Lori Haidri Saroya’s (“Saroya”),
`
`Motion to Compel and, in support thereof, avers the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This matter stems from Saroya’s systemic defamatory attacks against her former
`
`employer CAIR and her misappropriation of CAIR’s confidential and proprietary information.
`
`In the three years since her employment with CAIR ended, Saroya has published hundreds, if not
`
`thousands, of defamatory statements related to CAIR on social media websites and other web-
`
`based platforms, as well as through targeted email and social media communications to CAIR’s
`
`partners and donors, its employees’ relatives, and its Board members’ private employers.
`
`Despite Saroya’s categorization otherwise in her Motion to Compel, the accusations for which
`
`CAIR seeks relief were not lodged at any individual CAIR chapter organizations or any other
`
`third-party affiliate organizations. Saroya specifically accused CAIR, the national organization,
`
`of, inter alia, sexually abusing, sexually harassing, and discriminating against its employees.
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 166
`
`CAIR, the national organization, filed this lawsuit and is the only plaintiff in this litigation.
`
`Accordingly, Saroya cannot defend her unfounded and salacious accusations against CAIR by
`
`asserting that a chapter organization or a third-party affiliate organization committed the listed
`
`offenses.
`
`Despite the limited nature of the litigation, Saroya has engaged in discovery tactics that
`
`can only be viewed as intentionally vexatious and harassing. Without question, Saroya’s First
`
`Set of Document Requests (“Document Requests”) were interposed to harass CAIR and
`
`needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Considering the needs of the case and the issues at
`
`stake, the Document Requests are, as a whole, unreasonable and unduly burdensome.
`
`Responding to the Document Requests as written would cost considerable expensive to CAIR
`
`and the burden of responding to the Requests outweighs any tangential relevance. By way of
`
`example, Saroya requested all documents that refer to, relate to, or “in any way concern” her for
`
`a 10-year time period (Document Request Nos. 1 and 2); all documents that refer to, relate to, or
`
`reflect any donations to CAIR, the Washington Trust Foundation, Inc. (“WTFI”), or the CAIR
`
`Action Network, Inc. (“CAIR Action Network”) for the same 10 years (Document Request Nos.
`
`4 and 23); all documents that refer to, relate to, or reflect any lawsuits or administrative claims
`
`filed by any person, entity, or agency against CAIR, WTFI, CAIR Action Network, or any
`
`chapter or affiliate for any reason, again over a 10-year time period (Document Request Nos. 5
`
`and 6); all documents referring or relating to or reflecting any communication between CAIR,
`
`WTFI, or CAIR Action Network, Inc. and Metropolitan Property Management, Inc. (Document
`
`Request No. 41); and any contributions or grants to Greater Washington LLC of Delaware or to
`
`Zahara Investment Corporation (Document Request Nos. 43). Saroya also requested that CAIR
`
`produce documents that relate to or refer to 17 individuals over the 10 year time period, only one
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 166
`
`of whom ever worked for CAIR and some of whom are not even completely identified in the
`
`requests (Document Request Nos. 23 and 24). At the time Saroya lodged these Requests, and
`
`many others, she knew they were unreasonable and that they would create an unfair burden on
`
`CAIR; indeed, the entire purpose of her requests, and her discovery strategy as a whole, is to
`
`effectuate that result.
`
`Because Saroya seeks broad-based discovery from a myriad of different third party
`
`entities and requests that searches be conducted for documents related to individuals who never
`
`even worked at CAIR, CAIR was forced to object to the vast majority of Saroya’s requests, and
`
`to maintain those objections now. Although CAIR was under no obligation to narrow the scope
`
`of Saroya’s exceedingly overbroad requests, CAIR, following Saroya’s express instruction to do
`
`so, strove to narrow the requests to seek acceptable discovery nonetheless.1 To that end, CAIR
`
`agreed to produce, has produced, and will continue to produce documents and information
`
`related to it. Specifically, CAIR agreed to produce documents related to all lawsuits,
`
`administrative claims, settlement agreements, complaints, and allegations lodged against it by its
`
`employees related to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for a 5-year time period (the
`
`subject of Saroya’s defamatory communications). It also agreed to search its executive
`
`leadership for electronically-sourced information using the terms, “complain,” “investigate,”
`
`“sex,” “harass,” “gender,” “discrimination,” “retaliation,” “hostile,” “abuse,” “victim,” and
`
`“assault” for that same time period. To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents and
`
`information are recovered, CAIR will supplement its document production.
`
`1 See Kerbaugh Declaration Exhibit A at Saroya’s Instructions (“To the extent CAIR objects to any
`request set forth below on the basis of a contention that it is overbroad for any reason, please respond to
`that request as narrowed in such a way as to render it not overbroad and state the extent to which CAIR
`has narrowed the request for purposes of the response”).
`3
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 4 of 166
`
`Saroya accused CAIR, the national organization, of engaging in misconduct. The scope
`
`of her discovery should be limited to discovering the truth or falsity of those allegations.
`
`Allegations against CAIR cannot be proven true through the conduct of other third party entities.
`
`Accordingly, Saroya’s Motion to Compel should be denied in its entirety.
`
`SAROYA’S VEXACIOUS DISCOVERY STRATEGY
`
`To fully understand Saroya’s abuse of the discovery process, a bigger picture must be
`
`painted. CAIR’s mission to protect the civil rights of Muslims in America, counter bigotry, and
`
`advocate for justice, has made it the prime target for many anti-Muslim hate groups over the past
`
`25 years. CAIR employees and leaders are routinely subjected to attacks and death threats.
`
`Numerous individuals have attempted to have CAIR labeled a terrorist organization, embroiling
`
`CAIR in years of litigation. Saroya’s discovery requests are directly related to one of those prior
`
`matters, as opposed to this one.
`
`In 2008, Daniel Horowitz, Esq. filed a complaint on behalf Michael Savage in the United
`
`States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. C 07-6076 SI) claiming
`
`that CAIR: (1) is working in concert with Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and various terror
`
`groups and individuals “in an association-in-fact enterprise” that promotes terror; (2) raises
`
`“money for ostensible civil rights activities… when in fact the self-proclaimed [sic] charity is
`
`designed to promote the terror agenda of Hamas;” (3) is involved in a “conspiracy that violated
`
`the rights of Jews and Christians by targeting them for economic harm, murder, and other harms
`
`due to their religion”; (4) is illegally acting as a foreign agent and concealing funding from
`
`overseas in violation of its tax exempt status; (5) is part of a “conspiracy that intends to eliminate
`
`the United States Constitution and replace it with Sharia law;” and (6) is raising money to
`
`support a violent jihad, among a host of other harmful and false accusations of criminal conduct.
`
`4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 5 of 166
`
`See Michael Savage’s Third Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. These
`
`allegations, among others, had no basis in law or fact and were purely inflammatory. The
`
`District Court ultimately dismissed Mr. Savage’s complaint. See Order of Dismissal, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`On July 5, 2019, Mr. Horowitz authored a demand letter to CAIR on Saroya’s behalf.
`
`The letter purported to be about Saroya’s alleged wage claim, but in it, Mr. Horowitz threatened
`
`to file the same failed lawsuit against CAIR on Ms. Saroya’s behalf that Mr. Savage had filed
`
`claiming that CAIR is a terrorist organization. See e.g., CAIR’s Complaint at ¶¶ 95 – 101. Mr.
`
`Horowitz concluded his letter by demanding several hundred thousands of dollars in exchange
`
`for Saroya’s agreement not to file the terrorist complaint. Id. at ¶ 100. CAIR did not acquiesce
`
`to what it perceived to be an extortion attempt, and Saroya never filed the complaint. Id. at ¶
`
`101.
`
`In an attempt to inject the same baseless claims and threats purportedly made in
`
`connection with her wage claim into this litigation, on August 10, 2021, without providing
`
`advance notice to CAIR’s counsel, Saroya served a Subpoena Duces Tecum on Mr. Horowitz,
`
`seeking, inter alia, all documents related to any litigation in which he was involved, all Internal
`
`Revenue Service, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Bureau
`
`of Investigation documents related to CAIR in his possession, and all documents obtained
`
`pursuant to his Freedom of Information Act requests. See Horowitz Subpoena Duces Tecum,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C. In response to this subpoena, Mr. Horowitz has produced over
`
`30,000 pages of discovery to Saroya.
`
`Saroya’s threat to file Mr. Savage’s failed complaint against CAIR is relevant to the
`
`instant Motion to Compel because it provides this Court with the backdrop necessary to
`
`5
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 6 of 166
`
`understand the motivation behind Saroya’s Document Requests. Saroya’s Document Requests
`
`do not pertain solely to the claims and defenses of the instant litigation, as required by Rule 26(b)
`
`of the Federal Rules, and instead seek far broader discovery related to CAIR, its property
`
`interests, and its donors. Many of the requests at issue were interposed for an improper purpose,
`
`namely to harass CAIR, further promulgate Saroya’s and others’ “CAIR is a terrorist
`
`organization” agenda, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
`
`Saroya’s Motion should be denied because discovery must be reasonable. Here, CAIR
`
`has agreed to investigate, search for, and produce the discovery reasonably related to the issues
`
`in this lawsuit. It should not be compelled to produce anything further.
`
`A.
`
`CAIR Should Not Be Ordered to Produce Documents Related to Third Party
`Entities Because Saroya’s Defamatory Statements Attacked CAIR Not These Third
`Party Entities.
`
`This discovery dispute primarily centers around Saroya’s requests for discovery related to
`
`CAIR chapter organizations and to other third party corporations, which Saroya dubs “National
`
`Affiliates,” namely WTFI and the CAIR Action Network. CAIR Action Network is no longer in
`
`existence and is now known as WTFI. It will be referred to herein as “WTFI”. CAIR objected
`
`to producing documents related to these third party entities, because this lawsuit charges Saroya
`
`with defaming CAIR, not these separate entities, and, therefore, documents related to any
`
`“affiliate” and/or chapter organization are not relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses and not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case. CAIR also objected to these requests because such
`
`discovery is likely to cause an undue burden and expense on CAIR that greatly outweighs any
`
`purported benefit to the discovery.
`
`Saroya spends the bulk of her Motion to Compel arguing that CAIR should be forced to
`
`produce these documents because CAIR has access to or control over the documents possessed
`
`6
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 7 of 166
`
`by these third party entities. But Saroya’s Motion misses the point. CAIR should not be
`
`compelled to produce the documents related to the 22 CAIR chapter organizations and WTFI
`
`because Saroya did not accuse these 23 separate entities of engaging in rampant sexual abuse and
`
`exploitation of their employees. Instead, she published statements accusing CAIR of committing
`
`misconduct against its employees. Indeed, in many of her communications she either
`
`specifically refers to CAIR-National as the perpetrator of the misconduct or distinguishes CAIR
`
`and its conduct from the conduct of CAIR chapter organizations. See e.g., CAIR’s Complaint at
`
`¶¶ 72, 82, 84, 88, 90, 92, 107, 128, 134, 146, and 155. At no point does she accuse WTFI of
`
`sexually abusing or discriminating against its employees. CAIR, not any affiliate or chapter
`
`organization, accuses Saroya of defaming it, and CAIR, not any affiliate or chapter, bears the
`
`burden of proving the Saroya’s statements are false.
`
`Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and Saroya has asserted “truth” as an
`
`affirmative defense in the instant litigation. See Saroya’s Answer at p. 46. CAIR does not
`
`dispute that Saroya is entitled to discovery pertaining to the truth or falsity of her statements, but
`
`Saroya’s statements accusing CAIR, the national organization, of misconduct cannot be proven
`
`true or false by the conduct of any of CAIR’s chapters or affiliates. As a result, CAIR objected
`
`to producing discovery related the 22 chapters and WTFI because that discovery is simply not
`
`related to the claims and defenses of the instant litigation. Saroya’s own actions during the
`
`course of discovery belie her assertion that discovery from all 22 chapters is relevant, as she sent
`
`document subpoenas to only 10 of those chapter organizations.
`
`Additionally, Saroya’s accusation that CAIR merely submitted “boilerplate” objections
`
`related to the production of documents belonging to these third parties and then “dust[ed] off the
`
`predictable, wearisome and incorrect line that she is engaged in a ‘fishing expedition’” has no
`
`7
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 8 of 166
`
`basis in fact or reality. The law is well-settled that while “the standard of relevance in the
`
`context of discovery is broader than in the context of admissibility…this often intoned legal tenet
`
`should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions discovery. Some threshold showing
`
`of relevance must be made before parties are required to open wide the doors of discovery and to
`
`produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear upon the issues in the case.”
`
`Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). This
`
`Court has “its own independent obligation under Rule 1 to assure that discovery in this case
`
`does not become a fishing expedition but instead is focused on matters for which there is some
`
`foundation in the record.” Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. De C.V. v. Polymetrix AG, No. 16-cv-2401
`
`(SRN/HB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87594, at *7 (D. Minn. May 24, 2019); see also Shukh v.
`
`Seagate Tech., LLC, 295 F.R.D. 228, 238 (D. Minn. 2013) (“Magistrate Judge properly
`
`concluded that such broad discovery requests constituted a fishing expedition, not necessarily
`
`directed at obtaining relevant materials”); Perry v. Best Lock Corp., No. IP 98-936-C H/G, 1999
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23601, at *8-9 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 21, 1999) (quashing subpoenas that “look like
`
`nothing more than a fishing expedition, or, more accurately, an exercise in swamp-dredging and
`
`muck-racking”). Accordingly, this Court is well-within its authority to limit Saroya’s fishing
`
`expedition.
`
`Saroya’s Document Requests pertaining to the chapter organizations and WTFI go far
`
`beyond the claims and defenses in this case. This Court should deny Saroya’s Motion to Compel
`
`with respect to any request seeking documents and information from the chapter organizations,
`
`WTFI, or any other third party affiliate.
`
`8
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 9 of 166
`
`B.
`
`CAIR Should Not Be Ordered to Produce Documents in the Possession, Custody,
`or Control of Third Party Entities.
`
`Notwithstanding the fact that CAIR chapter organizations and WTFI are not parties to
`
`this lawsuit and that Saroya has not lodged any claims against them, Saroya continues to take the
`
`position that she should be permitted to seek discovery related to and in the possession of these
`
`entities. In support of her argument, she expends a great deal of energy attempting to show that
`
`CAIR has a relationship with its chapter organizations and WTFI. But again, she misses the
`
`point. CAIR does not deny that it has a relationship with the chapter organizations or WTFI.
`
`Rather, CAIR denies that it has lawful access to many of the documents in the possession of the
`
`22 different chapter organizations, operating through 33 different office locations, and WTFI,
`
`and asserts that Saroya’s alleged benefits of such discovery are outweighed by the burdens and
`
`expenses involved.
`
`CAIR’s headquarters and principal place of business is located in Washington, D.C. See
`
`Affidavit of Lena Masri, Esq., attached hereto as Exhibit D at ¶ 1. CAIR has one other outreach
`
`office, which is in Maryland. Id. at ¶ 3. CAIR employs 26 individuals at its office in
`
`Washington D.C. and one individual at its outreach office in Maryland. Id. at ¶ 4. CAIR is
`
`affiliated with 22 independent regional organizations nationwide. Id. at ¶ 5. These regional
`
`organizations are known as “chapters.” Id. Some of these chapters have multiple branch offices
`
`within a particular region. Id. In total, CAIR is affiliated with 22 chapters and 33 individual
`
`offices. Id. These offices are named after the city or state they represent (e.g., CAIR-Minnesota;
`
`CAIR-Philadelphia). Id. CAIR’s relationship with the chapter organizations is governed by
`
`individual affiliation and license agreements between CAIR and each of its chapters. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`Although each affiliation and license agreement is unique, in general, the agreements operate as
`
`follows: in exchange for a fee, CAIR licenses its chapter organizations to use its federally
`
`9
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 10 of 166
`
`registered trademark and conduct chapter business in support of CAIR’s central mission. Id. at ¶
`
`7. The chapters themselves are wholly separate legal entities. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`Each chapter is required to maintain separate corporate status, status as a 501(c)(3)
`
`exempt non-profit organization, separate liability insurance, and separate professional liability
`
`insurance for all attorney employees. Id. at ¶ 9. Each chapter has its own governance structure,
`
`generally consisting of a governing board and an Executive Director and its own Board of
`
`Directors. Id. at ¶ 10. A chapter’s Executive Director governs the day to day operations of the
`
`chapter, while the Board of Directors are charged with the legal governance and strategic
`
`planning. Id. at ¶ 11. CAIR does not employ individuals at any chapter and it does not have the
`
`power to hire, fire, or alter the employment status of an employee at the chapter level. Id. at ¶
`
`12. It likewise does not have authority to police, manage, control, or otherwise control the day to
`
`day actions of chapter employees. Id. at ¶ 13. Chapters lease or own their own properties,
`
`maintain their own payroll, bookkeeping, insurance policies, and manage their own operating
`
`expenses. Id. at ¶ 14. CAIR has no control over any chapter’s lease, bank accounts, payroll,
`
`bookkeeping, insurance policies, or operating expenses. Id. at ¶ 15.
`
`CAIR does provide certain services to the chapters. Id. at ¶ 16. CAIR provides
`
`@cair.com email addresses to chapter employees and board members. Id. at ¶ 17. CAIR has
`
`access to these email communications; however, its permission to access these emails is
`
`restricted and can only be exercised based upon a reasonable suspicion of misuse or wrongdoing
`
`by the chapter employee and if certain stringent approvals are met. Id. at ¶ 18. In the absence of
`
`suspected email misuse or wrongdoing or the requisite approvals, CAIR does not have any
`
`contractual or other legal basis to access chapter employees’ email correspondence. Id. at 19.
`
`CAIR does not have access to the chapter organization’s individual servers or any
`
`10
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 11 of 166
`
`documents stored outside of the @cair.com email platform. Id. at ¶ 20. CAIR does not have
`
`access to the business, proprietary and confidential information of any chapter. Id. at ¶ 21.
`
`CAIR does not have physical access to any chapter offices. Id. at ¶ 22. Accordingly, CAIR has
`
`no independent lawful right of access to chapter documents that Saroya seeks.
`
`CAIR is affiliated with WTFI; however, it likewise has no lawful access to the
`
`documents in WTFI’s possession. WTFI is a completely separate corporate entity. Id. at ¶ 24.
`
`CAIR does not share an address with WTFI, nor does it share any employees with WTFI.2 Id. at
`
`¶ 26. CAIR does not have the authority to hire, fire or otherwise police, manage, or control the
`
`day to day activities of WTFI employees. Id. at ¶ 27. Although Nihad Awad sits on the Boards
`
`of both CAIR and WTFI, Mr. Awad is not a member of WTFI’s Board as a representative of
`
`CAIR. His role in each organization is distinct. Id. at ¶ 28. Mr. Awad is the only CAIR board
`
`member who sits on the Board of both CAIR and WTFI. Id. at ¶ 29. Mr. Awad has a fiduciary
`
`duty to keep confidential information he learns through his capacity as a CAIR board member;
`
`and therefore, does not share that information with WTFI. Id. at ¶ 31. WTFI’s President is Esam
`
`Omeish. Id. at ¶ 32. WTFI does not use CAIR’s email server or any of CAIR’s IT services. Id.
`
`2 Saroya’s reference to the attorney-client privilege document she misappropriated from CAIR
`upon her termination was made in bad faith. The report referenced is labeled as “Confidential
`Communication,” “Attorney-Client Privileged,” and “Attorney Work Product.” It is a
`communication from legal counsel to its client for the purpose of rendering legal advice. Ms.
`Saroya obtained the report when she was sitting on CAIR’s Board of Directors. The law is well-
`settled that the distribution within a corporation of legal advice received from counsel does not
`vitiate the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, courts have expressly held that communications
`among corporate officers, directors, and employees who are not lawyers are still privileged if
`their discussions relay or transmit advice received from an attorney. See Hudock v. LG Elecs.
`U.S.A., Inc., No. 0:16-cv-1220-JRT-KMM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190611, at *7 (D. Minn.
`Nov. 4, 2019) (collecting cases). The privilege provides absolute protection from the disclosure
`of the confidential communication between the attorney and his client, including disclosure to
`this Court. As the client, CAIR holds this privilege and does not consent to Saroya’s publication
`of the Report in any forum.
`
`11
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 12 of 166
`
`at ¶ 33. CAIR does not have access to the business, proprietary and confidential information of
`
`WTFI. Id. at ¶ 35. CAIR has no control over WTFI’s lease, bank accounts, payroll,
`
`bookkeeping, insurance policies, or operating expenses. Id. at ¶ 36. CAIR does not have
`
`physical access to WTFI’s office. Id. at ¶ 37. Based on the foregoing, CAIR has no independent
`
`lawful right of access to the majority of the documents that Saroya seeks.
`
`Additionally, responding to Saroya’s requests for chapter organization documents and
`
`documents in the possession of other third party affiliates would be burdensome because it would
`
`require CAIR to expend unreasonable time, effort, and money to travel to all 33 chapter office
`
`locations and WTFI to search for responsive hardcopy materials and conduct email review on the
`
`chapters’ and WTFI’s individual email servers, the scope of which would be astronomical
`
`because Saroya has never even lodged any specific accusations and has never identified any
`
`specific perpetrators, alleged victims, or incidents to support her defamatory statements. As a
`
`result, to prepare its response to the Document Requests as written, CAIR would need to conduct
`
`email review on every single current and former employee of CAIR, the 22 individual CAIR
`
`chapter organizations, and WTFI for a 10-year time period.
`
`Although CAIR has requested that Saroya provide it with information as to why each
`
`chapter organization and WTFI is relevant to the instant lawsuit, including any information
`
`pertaining to specific instances that Saroya claims to have knowledge about, Saroya has
`
`declined. Likewise, when CAIR requested that Saroya respond to its efforts to meet and confer
`
`on electronically-sourced information (“ESI”) custodians, time periods, and search terms, Saroya
`
`also declined. Instead, Saroya sent subpoenas to 10 chapter organizations and WTFI for the
`
`same documents that it seeks to obtain from CAIR.
`
`12
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 13 of 166
`
`Saroya’s Motion to Compel documents related to and possessed by CAIR chapter
`
`organizations and WFTI should be denied because: (1) CAIR does not have access to documents
`
`belonging to chapter organizations or WTFI; (2) Saroya already subpoenaed several chapters and
`
`WTFI and is now seeking duplicative discovery from CAIR; and (3) forcing CAIR to search 34
`
`(33 chapter office locations and WTFI) separate locations and multiple different email servers
`
`for responsive information is an undue burden that outweighs any benefit to the discovery. See
`
`FRCP 26(b)(2)(C).
`
`D.
`
`CAIR Should Not Be Ordered to Identify its Donors
`
`Saroya claims that she is entitled to obtain the identity of every single individual or entity
`
`who has donated to CAIR, any CAIR chapter organization, or WTFI for the past 10 years
`
`because CAIR asserted that “Saroya defamed them [sic] by making certain statements about their
`
`solicitation and acceptance of foreign funds.” Saroya’s assertion is incorrect. CAIR claimed that
`
`Saroya’s implication that it solicited international funding and was therefore funded by terrorist
`
`organizations was false. See Complaint at ¶¶ 120 (“CAIR does not accept funding from terrorist
`
`organizations). To be clear, CAIR’s defamation claim is not based on Saroya’s statements
`
`related to domestic or international funding. Were CAIR’s defamation claim to be based on
`
`Saroya’s statements related to funding, Saroya still would not be entitled to seek discovery on the
`
`identity of donors to CAIR chapter organizations or WTFI because Saroya’s statements about
`
`CAIR cannot be proved or disproved by conduct of a third party.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUESTS AT ISSUE
`
`Saroya grouped the Document Requests at issue into categories using self-serving and
`
`largely inaccurate headings. To add insult to prejudicial injury, the majority of the Document
`
`Requests are summarized in a manner designed to intentionally mislead this Court into granting
`
`13
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 14 of 166
`
`requests that are improper on their face. Saroya’s decision to intentionally misrepresent the
`
`scope of her Requests to this Court is an act of bad faith and should be recognized for what it is.
`
`Nevertheless, for ease of review, CAIR will respond to each of Saroya’s categories of disputed
`
`documents. As described below, many of the Document Requests at issue seek patently
`
`irrelevant discovery. Saroya’s Motion to Compel should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`“Information pertaining to the truth of the statements relating to sexual misconduct,
`gender and religious discrimination, and retaliation within CAIR.”
`(Request Nos. 3, 5 – 10, 13 – 15, 32, 42, 50)
`
`In her Motion to Compel, Saroya claims that Document Request Nos. 3, 5-10, 13-15, 32,
`
`42, 50 seek “information pertaining to the truth of the statements relating to sexual misconduct,
`
`gender and religious discrimination, and retaliation within CAIR.” Saroya’s statement is
`
`patently false. Instead, these requests seek far broader discovery, including: “all
`
`documents…relating to…any committee appointed by CAIR to evaluate financial, management,
`
`governance…” (Document Request No. 3); “all documents…relating to…any lawsuits of
`
`administrative claims filed by any person or entity” against CAIR, WTFI, any chapter
`
`organization, and/or any affiliate organization (Document Request Nos. 5 & 6); “all
`
`documents…relating to…any settlement agreements [proposed or executed]” between CAIR and
`
`WTFI and any present or former employees (Document Request Nos. 7 and 8); all documents
`
`relating to any allegations by present or former employee of CAIR, WTFI, any chapter
`
`organization, and/or any affiliate organization of “gender or sexual discrimination, sexual
`
`harassment or assault or retaliation” (Document Request Nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, and 50); all
`
`documents related to Hassan Shibly and/or Imran Shibly (Document Request Nos. 15 and 42);
`
`and all documents relating to the testimony of any officer or employee of CAIR of WTFI in any
`
`judicial or administrative proceeding (Document Request No. 32).
`
`14
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 15 of 166
`
`CAIR objected to these Requests for a variety of reasons, but the overarching objection to
`
`the Requests is that they require CAIR to search for, review, and produce discovery pertaining to
`
`CAIR chapter organizations and WTFI, which, for all the reasons stated above, is discovery that
`
`is not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Saroya cannot defend her false accusations against
`
`CAIR by claiming that some other individual or entity engaged in the conduct that she describes.
`
`Either the statements against CAIR, the national organization, are true or they are false. But
`
`Saroya cannot prove the truth or the statements through the actions of third party entities.
`
`Hassan Shibly, whom Saroya bases a myriad of requests around, has never been employed by
`
`CAIR. His wife, Imran Shibly, who accused Mr. Shibly of committing misconduct, has never
`
`been employed by CAIR. To CAIR’s knowledge, no CAIR employee has ever asserted that Mr.
`
`Shibly discriminated against, harassed, or retaliated against them. Mr. Shibly served as CAIR-
`
`Florida’s Executive Director and was employed solely by CAIR-Florida. Accordingly,
`
`documents and information related to Hassan Shibly are not relevant to Saroya’s claims against
`
`CAIR.
`
`Additionally, Saroya’s requests for all documents related to CAIR’s “governance,” all
`
`documents related to any lawsuit ever filed against CAIR by any individual person or entity
`
`without limitation as to the subject-matter of the litigation, and the testimony of any individual
`
`ever employed by CAIR in any proceeding regardless of whether that proceeding even involves
`
`the individual’s employment at CAIR clearly seek documents that are not relevant to the claims
`
`and defenses at issue in the instant litigation. Saroya has charged CAIR with discrimination,
`
`harassment, abuse, and retaliation against its employees. Instead of tailoring her requests to seek
`
`information related to these claims, Saroya requests all testimony of any CAIR employee (even
`
`if that employee was testifying in a completely personal litigation), all documents related to any
`
`15
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-01267-SRN-TNL Doc. 46 Filed 10/25/21 Page 16 of 166
`
`lawsuit ever filed against CAIR (even if the lawsuit was not filed by a CAIR employee), and all
`
`Board meeting minutes pertaining to “governance,” which would be every Board meeting as
`
`“governance” is the Board’s purpose. Such Discovery Requests are not likely to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible information and are not tailored to the claims and defenses of the instant
`
`litigation. CAIR also maintains that it does not have lawful access to the documents in the
`
`possession of CAIR chapter organizations or WTFI.
`
`Notwithstanding CAIR’s objections to the Requests, CAIR agreed to produce non-
`
`privileged documents and information related to lawsuits, administrative claims, complaints, and
`
`allegations lodged by any employee of CAIR or a CAIR chapter asserting discrimination, sexual
`
`harassment, or retaliation against CAIR or any CAIR employee, officer, or director from 2016
`
`through 2021. It also agreed search for electronically-stored information for t