Iacono v. IBM Corp.
Iacono v. IBM Corp.
2018 WL 6112608 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
April 16, 2018

Abrams, Paul L.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Possession Custody Control
Privacy
Failure to Produce
Attorney Work-Product
Attorney-Client Privilege
Proportionality
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel a further response to requests for documents related to IBM's decision to reduce headcount in the US West EBU in 2016. IBM must produce these documents no later than April 30, 2018, and must provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, if it contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents. The documents must be produced pursuant to the protective order issued in this action if appropriate, and the defendant must provide a detailed privilege log for any documents withheld.
Additional Decisions
Gerald IACONO, Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., et al., Defendants
No. CV 17-8083-FMO (PLAx)
United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
Signed April 16, 2018

Counsel

Frank A. Magnanimo, Lauren A. Dean, Magnanimo and Dean LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Plaintiff.
Alison B. Marshall, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Washington, DC, James M. Jones, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew W. Lampe, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, New York, NY, Momo Emily Takahashi, Shahab Sean Shahabi, Bren K. Thomas, Nicole Shaffer, Jackson Lewis PC, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.
Abrams, Paul L., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

I.
BACKGROUND
*1 On March 27, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (alternatively “JS”) regarding plaintiff Iacono's (“Iacono” or “plaintiff”) Motion to Compel (“Motion” or “Mot.”) defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM” or “defendant”) to provide further responses to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”). (ECF No. 15). On April 4, 2018, each party filed a Supplemental Memorandum (alternatively “Supp'l Mem.”).[1] (ECF Nos. 16, 17).
By way of background, pursuant to an IBM “resource action,” i.e., layoff, plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated from his employment as a Sales Specialist, at the age of 57, “after 34 years of exemplary service.” (JS at 1). He states that at the time of his termination, which was effective August 17, 2016, he was “a top performer in his sales unit with no performance issues or disciplinary issues”; that he applied for open job postings to remain with IBM, but was denied consideration for positions that he was qualified to perform; and that his accounts were given to an employee who was substantially younger than him and who possessed less skill. (JS at 1-2).
On December 8, 2017, plaintiff served his RFP on defendant. (JS at 2). Although defendant requested a three-week extension of time to respond to the discovery, plaintiff states he “could not grant” it because the District Judge had set a discovery cut-off date of June 29, 2018. (Id.). Defendant states that plaintiff's discovery was served at a time when IBM's lead counsel was in trial, and the due date was “in the middle of the holiday season,” when both counsel and IBM were unavailable, which was why it requested a three-week extension. (JS at 4). When the request was denied, IBM “had no option but to serve solely objections to preserve its rights,” and provided its substantive responses three weeks later. (JS at 2, 5). Plaintiff contends that he has “very little documentation from IBM regarding its 2016 layoff,” and that IBM “flatly refuses to produce documents regarding the reason for its decision to conduct resource actions in 2016,” or “what, if any, economic forces compelled a layoff” in plaintiff's business unit. (JS at 2).
*2 Defendant states that in 2016 it had at least four separate resource actions, and the one that resulted in plaintiff's layoff “was aimed at reducing headcount in IBM's Sales and Distribution Business Unit,” and was “implemented in an effort to streamline operations and increase business productivity.” (JS at 3). Defendant explains that its Sales and Distribution Business Unit is “divided into seven sub-business units,” one of of which is the Enterprise Services Business Unit (“EBU”), led by Judson Ficklen. (Id.). The EBU itself is divided into three regions -- West/Midwest (“US West”); Great Lakes/South; and New York/Atlantic/Florida. (JS at 3, 28). The US West region, under the management of Pete Legan, was itself further divided into three regions, under two managers -- Matthew Marriott and Paul Giani. (Id.). Marriott oversaw the Southwest & Rockies region, the division in which plaintiff was employed. (JS at 3-4, 28). In the first quarter of 2016, the EBU “was charged with reducing its headcount nationwide,” and Legan provided Marriott and Giani a target number by which to reduce their headcount. (JS at 3). Ultimately, the US West EBU was required to select five employees to reduce their headcount. (JS at 3, 28). According to defendant, Marriott was the single decision maker responsible “for the selections from the Southwest & Rockies division,” and had “zero input” about whether to institute a resource action. (JS at 4, 28). IBM states that “there was no universal requisite criteria for the selection,” and each business unit “decided for itself the determining criteria for those selected in the Resource Action in question.” (JS at 4). Defendant asserts, therefore, that the “specific reasons for implementing the nationwide Resource Action are irrelevant to the decision to select Plaintiff, including whether age was a factor.” (Id.). Defendant further states that of the three internal positions plaintiff applied for, two were closed without ever being filled, and the third was filled before plaintiff applied. (Id.). Thus, defendant submits, plaintiff's request for discovery seeking “all correspondence” relating to the three positions is “wholly irrelevant” and burdensome. Defendant also generally asserts that the “overarching defect” with the requests is that they are “grossly overbroad,” in that they seek “ ‘ALL’ documents related to the ‘2016 Resource Action.’ ” (Id.). It contends that the only relevant documents “are those that reflect determinations made by the decision maker who chose to include Plaintiff in the Resource Action.” (Id.). IBM further contends that plaintiff is attempting “to model his prosecution of this case after a wholly different class action,” which involved a prior resource action on the “opposite side of the country three years prior.” (JS at 5). Finally, defendant notes that despite plaintiff's claim that defendant has provided “very little documentation,” IBM has produce almost 2,400 pages of documents and supplemented many of its responses following multiple meet and confer conferences. (JS at 5-6).
In addition to further responses and documents, plaintiff also requests reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing the Motion in the amount of $10,500. (Mot. at 2, Dean Decl. ¶ 34; Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 5).
Having considered the arguments submitted in connection with the Motion, the Court has concluded that oral argument will not be of material assistance in determining the Motion. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for April 18, 2018, is ordered off calendar. (See Local Rule 7-15).
II.
DISCUSSION
Preliminarily, the Court will examine the issues in this Motion using the general standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(“Rule 26”). Rule 26 provides that a party 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[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to consider include “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.Information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. However, a court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by [the Federal] rules” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Finally, the Court is mindful of the imperative that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (emphasis added); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936) (a court has the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants” and “[h]ow this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance”).
A. “RESOLVED” DISPUTES
Plaintiff states that the parties have resolved their dispute with respect to RFP numbers 9, 23, 25, 27, and 30. (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 1). Defendant does not dispute this representation. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to compel further responses to RFP numbers 9, 23, 25, 27, and 30 is denied as moot.
B. DISCOVERY REMAINING IN DISPUTE
Plaintiff states that further responses and documents should still be ordered with respect to RFP numbers 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 33, 34, 40, 41, 48, and 49. (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 1-5).
1. RFP Number 15
*3 RFP number 15 seeks “any and all charts, diagrams or other DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or show YOUR organizational structure or hierarchy” from January 1, 2015, through the present. (JS at 10).
Plaintiff notes that during the meet an confer process it agreed to limit the request to charts showing or explaining the chain of authority or command above plaintiff “up through the CEO of IBM and organizational charts depicting the organizational structure of [plaintiff's] business unit including all of its sub-business units and business units above it as well as other business units in relation to it.” (JS at 12).
In the Joint Stipulation, defendant represented that it would provide an amended response stating that it has no organizational charts as limited by plaintiff; but as of April 4, 2018, it had not done so. (JS at 13 (“IBM will amend its response to this Request to reflect that no responsive documents exist, and should one later be found, will certainly supplement”); Pl's Supp'l Mem. at 1).
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion is granted in part as to RFP No. 15. No later than April 30, 2018, if it has not already done so, defendant shall provide an amended response regarding the existence of organizational charts showing or explaining the chain of authority or command above plaintiff “up through the CEO of IBM and organizational charts depicting the organizational structure of [plaintiff's] business unit including all of its sub-business units and business units above it as well as other business units in relation to it” from January 1, 2015, through the present, if any. (See JS at 13). If such documents exist, then defendant shall produce them. If defendant contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents, or that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, then it shall provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director, so stating.
2. RFP Numbers 16 and 17
RFP number 16 asks defendant to produce “All DOCUMENTS evidencing the reason YOU made the decision to do a layoff/Resource Action in 2016,” and RFP number 17 seeks “All DOCUMENTS YOU received from any financial consultant, investment banker, or investment service recommending a layoff/Resource Action in 2016.” (JS at 13, 17). Defendant responded to these requests only with objections, including that they are overbroad, burdensome, and harassing; seek information “not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding claims and defenses and [are] disproportionate to the needs of the case”; and seek proprietary and confidential information. (JS at 14, 17-18).
Plaintiff contends that IBM's reasons for implementing a reduction in force are directly relevant to IBM's defense and, therefore, he is entitled to discovery regarding those reasons. (JS at 14). Additionally, plaintiff states that he was advised by his manager that the layoff was being implemented “in an effort to streamline operations and increase business activity,” and he is now seeking documents to support this assertion. (Id.). Plaintiff notes that to the extent any such information is confidential or proprietary, it can be produced pursuant to the agreed-upon protective order issued in this action. (JS at 15; see also ECF No. 14). He also states that during the meet and confer process, although he acknowledged that he would not be entitled to “ ‘all documents’ [relating to the decision to institute the resource action in 2016], ... IBM took the position [plaintiff] was entitled to no documents at all regarding the reasons for the resource action because IBM is a large company.” (JS at 15 (citing Dean Decl. Ex. 8) ).
*4 Defendant asserts that it has produced documents regarding the reasons for the layoff, “including reproducing documents provided to Plaintiff which specifically state the reasons for the Resource Action,” as well as the training materials it provided to its managers, which, it states, also reflect the reasons for the specific resource action. (JS at 16, 19). It argues that plaintiff has not explained “why extensive discovery into IBM's financial reasons for the nationwide Resource Action are relevant, when, critically, the decision to institute the Resource Action was made several management levels above the decision maker who selected Plaintiff for the Resource Action (and who had no input nor was involved in the decision to implement the Resource Action).” (JS at 16). Additionally, it submits that is has produced documents “reflecting that the decision maker who selected Plaintiff for the Resource Action was responding to a directive to identify individuals for a Resource Action.” (JS at 16-17).
Plaintiff asserts that IBM “does not identify by Bates Number what document it is referring to and the statement [that it has produced responsive documents] is inconsistent with its service of objections only.” (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 1). Plaintiff notes that additional documents were produced on March 23, 2017 -- after the preparation of the Joint Stipulation and before preparation of the Supplemental Memoranda -- which “reveal that on March 31, 2016, unknown managers were notified by email, [that] ‘a resource action affecting your organization is approved.’ ” (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 1 (citing Supp'l Dean Decl. Ex. 18) ). Plaintiff further notes that although defendant states “for the first time” in the JS that the number of employees targeted for selection from the US West Enterprise was five, it has produced no documents showing why “IBM decided to: reduce headcount in the Enterprise Business unit nationwide, to implement a Resource Action in [plaintiff's] business unit, or to reduce headcount by five.” (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 2). He asserts that his need for the information is compelling given a recent March 22, 2018, article (published by ProPublica and co-published with Mother Jones), that reveals IBM's purported efforts to “correct the seniority mix” at IBM, and its exemption from layoff during the 2016 layoff of those employees who had been hired from a university campus within nine months from the “identification period.” (Id. (citing JS Dean Decl. Ex. 13) ). Plaintiff further asserts that he is entitled to the information because IBM has access to this information and plaintiff does not. (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 3).
The Court agrees with plaintiff that documents relating to IBM's underlying reasons for the 2016 nationwide EBU resource action that affected plaintiff and others in the US West EBU are relevant to plaintiff's claim of age discrimination, and to defendant's defenses to that claim. The fact that a specific manager identified plaintiff for layoff does not render irrelevant information, if any, that the company gave direction to its managers as to the criteria those managers might consider in making that decision. However, the Court also finds that to the extent plaintiff requests all documents relating to the decision “to do a layoff/Resource Action in 2016” other than the 2016 action that affected plaintiff, RFP numbers 16 and 17 are overbroad. Furthermore, it is also unclear as to what documents, if any, defendant contends it has produced responsive to these requests.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP numbers 16 and 17 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, defendant shall provide a further response and produce responsive documents relating to the reasons behind IBM's decision to lay off employees in the EBU (nationwide), including, but not limited to, documents reflecting IBM's decision to reduce the headcount in the US West EBU. Also, defendant shall identify by Bates number those documents that have already been produced that it contends are responsive to RFP numbers 16 and 17. If defendant contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents, or that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, then no later than April 30, 2018, it shall provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director, so stating.
3. RFP Numbers 18-20, 28, 33, and 40
*5 According to plaintiff, these requests seek 2016 layoff-related information, including the number of employees to lay off, or the budget to be cut (RFP No. 18); evidence of plans to implement the 2016 layoff (RFP No. 19); identification of the divisions to be affected (RFP No. 20); evidence of layoff reduction numbers by divisions (RFP No. 28); human resources notes and minutes regarding the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff (RFP No. 33); and disparate impact analyses (RFP No. 40). (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 3-4). IBM originally provided only objections to these RFPs, but in its amended responses to RFP numbers 18, 19 and 20, it agreed to produce responsive documents limited to the Southwest & Rockies EBU, and with respect to RFP number 28, it agreed to produce responsive documents limited to the entire US West EBU. (See, e.g., JS at 21-22, 26, 30, 38-39, 48).
a. RFP Numbers 18-20, 28 and 33
With respect to RFP number 18, plaintiff contends that although IBM agreed to produce documents related to the Southwest & Rockies EBU, it failed to produce such documents in its March 5 and 7, 2018, document productions. (JS at 22). Plaintiff also submits that IBM should not be permitted to limit its production to the Southwest & Rockies EBU, and that IBM should be required to provide information for all of the decision makers listed on plaintiff's candidate selection worksheet, which includes Pete Legan, Vice President of Sales (who prepared the worksheet), Judson Ficklen, General Manger, and Tamara Runnels Briley, Human Resources Partner, who reviewed the worksheet. (See, e.g., id. (citing Dean Decl. Ex. 13) ). During the meet and confer process, IBM rejected plaintiff's suggestion that IBM produce responsive information for any 2016 resource actions where Judson Ficklen was a reviewer. (Id. (citing Dean Decl. Exs. 10, 11) ).
Defendant responds with respect to RFP number 18 that despite its amended response that it would produce documents limited to the Southwest & Rockies EBU, it nevertheless produced “all responsive documents for the ‘decisionmaking’ unit of Plaintiff's selection,” including documents regarding the entire US West EBU related to the resource action, and not just to plaintiff's division (the Southwest & Rockies). (JS at 23). Defendant submits that there was only one individual -- Marriott -- who selected plaintiff for the layoff, and that the others merely approved the selections. (Id.). It argues that the request for documents reflecting Ficklen's participation in any other resource action in 2016 “is irrelevant and grossly overbroad” in light of the fact that Ficklen did not select plaintiff for the resource action and did not even know plaintiff. (Id.).
Plaintiff responds that the documents produced in this case reflect that Marriott “was not the sole decisionmaker in this case,” and that the candidate selection sheets “definitively demonstrate[ ]” that Legan prepared it and Ficklen reviewed it; email evidence shows that Marriott included Legan in email communications identifying a list of employees by name who should be targeted for layoff, even before preparing the candidate selection worksheet; and another email from Giani to Marriott reflects that Giani had a conversation with Ficklen who “let [Giani] remove Peter in exchange for Jim Reget,” and also demonstrates that Giani “was very involved in the decisions.” (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 4 (citing Supp'l Dean Decl. Ex. 20) ).
The parties' arguments are similar with respect to RFP numbers 19, 20, and 28, with the exception that with respect to RFP numbers 19 and 20, defendant only agreed to produce responsive documents from within the Southwest & Rockies division and does not indicate that it nevertheless produced documents pertaining to the US West EBU. (JS at 28, 32). With respect to RFP number 28, defendant agreed in its amended response to produce responsive documents limited to the US West EBU. (JS at 44). Then, in its Supplemental Amended response to RFP number 28, defendant stated that it “has already produced documents responsive to this Request, and is supplementing its production to produce any additional documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this Request.” (JS at 44). Defendant asserts with respect to RFP number 28, that it has already produced all responsive documents regarding the US West EBU and that the email correspondence from Giani transmitting the relevant candidate selection worksheet identifying plaintiff as a candidate for the resource action, as well as email exchanges between Giana and Marriott related to the selection of candidates, “constitute the documents for the managers that make up” the US West EBU. (JS at 45). It also states that it has conducted a “diligent search and reasonable inquiry” and “to the extent there are additional documents located that are responsive to Plaintiff's requests, in furtherance of its obligations to supplement its responses and production in discovery, IBM will continue to supplement its production.” (JS at 45).
*6 With respect to RFP number 33, IBM originally provided only objections, including that the request seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product privileges, that violate privacy rights, and that contain confidential and proprietary information. (JS at 48). In its amended response to RFP number 33, defendant agreed to produce responsive documents limited to the Southwest & Rockies EBU. (Id.). Plaintiff argues that to the extent defendant is withholding documents on grounds of privilege, it needs to provide an appropriate privilege log. (JS at 49). He also submits that IBM “should be required to provide information for the decisionmakers on [plaintiff's] candidate selection worksheet,” which shows that Legan, Ficklen, and Briley reviewed the worksheet. (Id.). Defendant responds that it has already produced all non-privileged responsive documents and that any “other relevant human resources notes relevant to Plaintiff's selection relate to IBM's investigation related to Plaintiff's DFEH complaint,” and are protected by the attorney work product doctrine. (Id. (citation omitted) ). It states that it will produce a privilege log identifying the pre-litigation notes and basis for withholding the documents from its production. (Id.).
For the same reasons discussed with respect to RFP numbers 16 and 17, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP numbers 18, 19, 20, 28, and 33 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, to the extent it has not already done so, defendant shall produce documents responsive to RFP numbers 18, 19, 20, 28 and 33, limited to the nationwide EBU and the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff. If defendant contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents to one or more of these requests, or that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, then no later than April 30, 2018, it shall provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director, so stating. If IBM has withheld documents responsive to RFP number 33 (or any other request) pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, then no later than April 30, 2018, it must provide plaintiff with a sufficiently detailed privilege log to enable plaintiff to evaluate the applicability of the privilege or other protection. Failure to provide sufficient information may constitute a waiver of the privilege. SeeEureka Fin. Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 182-83 (E.D. Cal. 1991).
b. RFP Number 40
RFP number 40 seeks disparate impact analyses relating to the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff. (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 3-4). In response to RFP number 40, defendant provided only objections, stating that the documents being sought are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product privileges, violate privacy rights, and contain confidential and proprietary information. (JS at 53). Plaintiff states that with respect to the 2016 resource action that affected him, he “observed that individuals selected for layoff were mostly over 40,” and that “in the recent past” IBM has been sued on a class-wide basis for age discrimination. (JS at 54-55). He argues that if IBM “did or did not make efforts to ensure that the selection criteria used in the 2016 resource actions did not adversely impact employees over the age of forty, any such efforts would be directly relevant” to his claims. (JS at 55). He also submits that to the extent any documents are being withheld based on privilege grounds, IBM must produce a privilege log.
Defendant states that this request is “grossly overbroad,” and that “[o]nly information regarding the selections made by the decision makers that chose to include Plaintiff in the Resource Action is relevant ... [and] [d]isparate impact analysis outside of this is irrelevant to the extent the analysis includes other wholly unrelated business divisions and decision makers.” (Id.). Although it concedes, therefore, that certain disparate impact analyses might be relevant to plaintiff's claims, it also states that it has “identified that any disparate impact analysis conducted by IBM's in-house counsel related to the Resource Action for which Plaintiff was selected is attorney work product ....” (Id.).
*7 Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may “protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney ... concerning the litigation.” The work product doctrine “is intended to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy ‘with an eye toward litigation,’ free from unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries.” United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1196 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) ). Furthermore, “[t]o be entitled to the protection of the work product rule, the material must have been generated in preparation for litigation. The prospect of future litigation is insufficient.” Whitman v. United States, 108 F.R.D. 5, 9 (D.N.H. 1985). Thus, the Court finds that any disparate impact analysis conducted by IBM's in-house counsel in preparation for litigation is work product. However, the underlying statistical data for the EBU (nationwide), relating to the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff, is not work product, and is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP number 40 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, to the extent it has not already done so, defendant shall produce the underlying statistical data regarding the individuals chosen for layoffs in the EBU (nationwide) pursuant to the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff. If defendant withholds any documents or information (including any disparate impact analyses) pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, then it must provide plaintiff with a sufficiently detailed privilege log to enable plaintiff to evaluate the applicability of the privilege or other protection. Failure to provide sufficient information may constitute a waiver of the privilege. See Eureka Fin. Corp., 136 F.R.D. at 182-83.
4. RFP Number 26
RFP number 26 seeks “all candidate selection worksheets and spreadsheets and DOCUMENTS transmitting same,” for the 2016 resource action of which plaintiff was a part. (JS at 37). In its supplemental response to this request, defendant stated that, limited to documents pertaining to the US West EBU, it has already produced two pages responsive to this request (IBM 000111-IBM 000113), and that it “is supplementing its production to produce any additional documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this Request.” (JS at 39).
Plaintiff states that the Guidelines for completing the Staff Reduction Worksheet direct the reviewing employee to forward information as a Lotus Notes attachment “to the job owner for approval” and then “to the HR Partner for review,” and then to the “resource action project office.” (JS at 39). Plaintiff submits that IBM has not produced any of the referenced documents or transmittals. (Id.). Plaintiff also states that to the extent any documents are being withheld based on privilege grounds, IBM must produce a privilege log. (Id.).
Defendant submits that it “has produced email correspondence from Paul Giani transmitting the relevant candidate selection worksheet that identified Plaintiff for the Resource Action, as well as email exchanges between Paul Giani and Matthew Marriott related to selection of candidates” and there are “no other emails transmitting the candidate selection worksheet.” (JS at 40). Defendant further states that to the extent “anything else is responsive, IBM has identified in its supplemental response to this request that such documents would be produced,” and plaintiff “has no basis to compel a further production.” (Id.).
Plaintiff responds that in the April 20, 2016, email from Marriott to Giani, a deleted candidate selection worksheet was referred to, and that deleted worksheet and any other versions of it have not been produced. (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 1).
*8 Defendant agreed to produce the candidate selection worksheets and spreadsheets and any documents transmitting those sheets for the entire US West EBU. It is unclear whether defendant contends that all such documents -- including previous versions -- have been produced. Additionally, for the reasons discussed previously, the Court finds that all documents responsive to RFP number 26 for the entire EBU (nationwide) pertaining to the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff are relevant to the parties' claims and/or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case.[2]
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP number 26 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, defendant shall produce documents responsive to this request for the EBU (nationwide) that have not already been produced, including, but not limited to, the deleted candidate selection worksheet referred to in the April 20, 2016, email, as well as any other versions of that worksheet. If defendant contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents, or that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, then no later than April 30, 2018, it shall provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director, so stating.
5. RFP Number 34
RFP number 34 seeks “[a]ll before, during and after layoff organizational charts applicable to the 2016 Resource Action.” (JS at 50). Defendant objected, but responded that it would produce documents responsive to this request pertaining to the Southwest & Rockies EBU. (Id.).
Plaintiff notes that in its document productions of March 5 and March 7, defendant failed to produce any documents responsive to this request. (JS at 51). Plaintiff also states that defendant's production should not be limited to only the Southwest & Rockies EBU. (Id.). Plaintiff notes that during the meet and confer process, IBM provided case authority suggesting that such information should be limited to the “same decision making unit,” and that plaintiff then proposed that IBM produce responsive information for 2016 resource actions where Ficklen was a reviewer. (Id.). In response, IBM proposed limiting the information to the US West EBU, “but provide[d] no rationale [sic] basis for doing so.” (Id.).
IBM states that it has produced organizational charts reflecting the manager who approved the selections in the US West EBU for the subject resource action, including a chart reflecting the organizational structure changes of plaintiff's division, the Southwest & Rockies. (JS at 52). It notes that it also produced an organizational chart “reflecting organizational structure changes of the same region and division post-July 1, 2016, when IBM had a reorganization, resulting in changes in reporting structures.” (Id.). IBM further states that during the meet and confer process with plaintiff, it agreed to produce an organizational chart for the entire EBU, if one exists, that includes the reporting chain above Mr. Ficklen, as well as an organizational chart showing how and where the EBU is situated within IBM. (Id.). Defendant states that it “has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, and to the extent there are additional documents located that are responsive to [RFP number 34] ... IBM will continue to supplement its production.” (Id.). It does not state whether it located any such charts during its search and inquiry.
*9 Plaintiff responds that the organizational charts produced by defendant are not responsive to the request, and that the post-July 1, 2016, chart produced was incomplete as only page 1 of 2 was provided and the chart was not dated. (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 4-5)
For the same reasons discussed with respect to RFP numbers 16 and 17, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP number 34 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, to the extent it has not already done so, defendant shall produce the EBU organizational charts that it agreed to search for and provide during the meet and confer, if any exist. It shall also provide page 2 of the incomplete post-July 1, 2016, chart it previously produced, along with a declaration attesting to the date of that chart. If defendant contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents, or that no additional responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, then no later than April 30, 2018, it shall provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director, so stating.
6. RFP Number 41
RFP number 41 seeks statistical data “showing all employees from January 1, 2011, through the present including date of birth or age, position, date hired, date terminated and reason for termination.” (JS at 56). Defendant objected to this request as overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and on the grounds that it violates privacy rights, seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, and seeks information “not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding claims and defenses and is disproportionate to the needs of the case.” (JS at 56).
Plaintiff states that during the meet and confer process, IBM agreed to consider producing responsive information for plaintiff's business unit or region, but did not provide any such responsive information in its supplemental response to the request. (JS at 57). He suggests that IBM should be compelled to produce “statistical data for 2016 layoff decisions where Ficklen was a reviewer.” (Id.).
Defendant asserts that it has “already produced the underlying statistical data for the entire West Enterprise business unit, identifying the individuals by name, their business unit and their ages.” (Id.). Defendant contends that this “is what is relevant to this action where Plaintiff claims he was selected for the Resource Action due to his age.” (Id.).
To the extent this request is seeking statistical data for resource actions other than the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff, the Court finds that RFP number 41 is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff is, however, entitled to statistical information for the entire EBU, with respect to the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff, reflecting those individuals who were laid off pursuant to that resource action.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP number 41 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, to the extent it has not already done so, defendant shall produce the underlying statistical data with respect to the 2016 resource action that affected plaintiff, for the entire EBU (nationwide), identifying the affected individuals by name, their regional business unit, and their ages. If defendant contends that after a reasonable search and diligent inquiry it has already produced all responsive documents to this request, or that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, then no later than April 30, 2018, it shall provide a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director, so stating.
7. RFP Numbers 48, 49
*10 RFP numbers 48 and 49 seek information regarding IBM's job post number 63221BR, as posted on IBM's website and Linkedin, including the date of the post and all communications regarding it (RFP number 48), and documents reflecting the qualifications of the individual selected to fill the job, including applications, resumes, and documents transmitting those documents (RFP number 49). (JS at 61, 63). Defendant responded to these requests with only objections regarding overbreadth and lack of specificity, and also on the grounds that the requests seek documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product privileges, violate privacy rights, and contain confidential and proprietary information. (JS at 62, 64).
Plaintiff notes that in his final 90 days of employment, he applied for “open job postings to remain with IBM.” (JS at 62). He states that one such position was the “Aspera Inside Sales Position,” and that his interview with the recruiter was positive, although he never heard back from her. (Id.). He states that “IBM now claims that the Aspera Sales Position was cancelled,” but observes that after he left, “IBM re-advertised the exact position on IBM.com and Linkedin.” (Id.). He states that he is entitled to discovery concerning whether the cancellation and reopening of the same position “was an act of discrimination executed to prevent [him] from landing the Aspera Sales position,” an issue directly related to his age discrimination claims. (Id.).
Defendant states that plaintiff is seeking information for a position to which he never applied, and that plaintiff's theory “is wholly unsupported and does not then give rise” to plaintiff having the right to seek all correspondence and information related to a position to which he never applied. (JS at 63). IBM states that “in an effort to compromise,” it produced every application package for each applicant to the position to which plaintiff did apply prior to his departure. (Id.). It states that the position plaintiff applied to “was closed without being filled for reasons unrelated to Plaintiff,” and that the later position “was a different position with a different hiring manager, a different recruiter, and was posted months after the position to which Plaintiff actually applied.” (Id.). With respect to RFP number 49, defendant also asserts that “[w]ho was ultimately selected for this position to which Plaintiff did not apply has nothing to do with him or this action,” and that if plaintiff wants to obtain information as to why he was not selected for the position he applied to, or believes that the “new position was opened just to avoid hiring him, the appropriate vehicle for this information is to depose the hiring managers who made those decisions, not to invade the privacy of unrelated third parties.” (JS at 65-66).
Plaintiff responds by pointing out that in an article he provided with his Supplemental Memorandum, it was reported that “Scores of ex-[IBM] employees interviewed by ProPublica said that managers with job openings told them they weren't allowed to hire from layoff lists without getting prior, high-level clearance, something that's almost never given.” (Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 5 (citing Dean Supp'l Decl. Ex. 17) ). He asserts that he is entitled to probe whether that is true, and if the posting of a position with an identical description as the one plaintiff applied to was a different position with a different hiring manager and a different recruiter, “communications should exist establishing these facts.” (Id.).
The parties are entitled to conduct discovery in the form that they see fit, keeping in mind the imperative that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (emphasis added). Thus, plaintiff has no obligation to depose the hiring managers to obtain the information he wants, instead of seeking relevant documents. Indeed, plaintiff's attempt to obtain this information through requests seeking documents relating to job posting 63221BR would appear to be less costly than deposing one or more hiring managers on this issue (although, of course, plaintiff is also free to do just that). Plaintiff has demonstrated that the information sought by RFP numbers 48 and 49 is relevant to his age discrimination claim and defendant has not demonstrated that production of that information is not proportional to the needs of the case. Moreover, any third-party privacy concerns with respect to the documents produced pursuant to RFP numbers 48 and/or 49 can be addressed by the protective order issued in this action and by redacting sensitive identifying information (social security number and address, for example).
*11 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to compel a further response to RFP numbers 48 and 49 is granted in part. No later than April 30, 2018, defendant shall produce documents responsive to RFP numbers 48 and 49, pursuant to the protective order issued in this action if appropriate.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion is granted in part as set forth above. No later than April 30, 2018, defendant shall produce further responses and documents, as well as any privilege log[3] and declarations, in accordance with this Order. Plaintiff''s request for monetary sanctions is denied.
It is so ordered.

Footnotes

In its Supplemental Memorandum, defendant asserts that “there was a single individual who made the decision to lay Plaintiff off [and] [i]nformation about other completely unrelated complaints for discrimination from a different time, in completely different business units and divisions with completely different decision makers is irrelevant to this action.” (Def't's Supp'l Mem. at 2). Other than this general statement, defendant's Supplemental Memorandum does not specifically address any of the disputed discovery requests. Indeed, although plaintiff acknowledges that defendant produced additional responsive documents on March 23, 2018, after the JS was filed but before the Supplemental Memoranda were filed (see Pl.'s Supp'l Mem. at 1), there is no indication from defendant as to whether it contends it has now provided plaintiff with some or all of the documents in its possession, custody, or control responsive to any of the requests in the RFP. Instead, defendant uses its Supplemental Memorandum to complain about the number of requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission served by plaintiff, as well as about subpoenas plaintiff served on a New York law firm seeking documents relating to a class action filed in 2013 against IBM, and on the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, seeking all documents relating to “any and all charges of age discrimination filed against IBM from 2013 to present.” (Def't's Supp'l Mem. at 2). That discovery is not the subject of the Motion before this Court.
Other than generally stating that gathering and producing documents from outside the US West region “would be extremely burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this case” (see, e.g., JS at 25), defendant has not otherwise offered any evidence regarding the nature of the alleged burden as to any request. See Blankenship v.Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (party opposing discovery has a “heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied”).
A defendant who has withheld responsive documents or information that it contends are protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege or protection, is required to provide a sufficiently detailed privilege log to enable the propounding party to evaluate the applicability of the privilege or other protection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); Clarke v. Am. Comm. Nat'l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992); see The Rutter Group, Cal. Practice Guide, Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, Form 11:A (Privilege Log). Failure to provide sufficient information may constitute a waiver of the privilege. See Eureka Fin. Corp., 136 F.R.D. at 182-83 (a “blanket objection” to each document on the ground of attorney-client privilege with no further description is clearly insufficient); Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1984) (attorney-client privilege waived when defendant did not make a timely and sufficient showing that the documents were protected by privilege).