BACKGROUND

*1 The underlying dispute in this case involves claims by Plaintiffs Long Nguyen and Thuy Tran (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), in a putative class action lawsuit, that Defendant Lotus By Johnny Dung Inc. f/k/a Jade Lotus Way, Inc. (“Defendant”) engaged in false advertising regarding certain products containing fucoidan and graviola. A motion for class certification is currently set for hearing before the Hon. James V. Selna, District Judge, on June 17, 2019. Dkt. 155.

On May 2, 2019, Defendant filed: (1) a combined Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Document Production from Plaintiff Long Nguyen and Supporting Joint Stipulation (Dkt. 151, the “Nguyen Motion” or “Jt. Stip. 1”); and (2) a combined Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Document Production from Plaintiff Thuy Tran and Supporting Joint Stipulation (Dkt. 152, the “Tran Motion” or “Jt. Stip. 2”), with both Motions set for a hearing on June 6, 2019. In the Motions, Defendant seeks orders compelling Plaintiffs to: (1) provide further responses to three interrogatories; (2) produce documents responsive to five requests for the production of documents (“RFPs”); and (3) pay sanctions of $2,800.00 for “Plaintiff's bad faith tactics and refusal to provide information and documents directly relevant to this putative class action.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 5-9.

Neither party filed a timely supplemental memorandum under Local Rule 37-2.3 in support of or in opposition to either motion. As a result, the Motions are fully briefed. The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument (see Local Rule 7-15) and vacates the hearing set for June 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.

Having considered the parties' submissions, for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part, and denies in part, the Motions.

II.

RELEVANT LAW

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Relevance ‘has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.’ ” Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Wyo Tech Inv. Group LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2019 WL 1531886, at *7 (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)).

Pursuant to Rule 33, “[a]n interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Rule 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Rule 33(b)(4). A propounding party may move for an order compelling an answer to an interrogatory if “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33.” Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii). An evasive or incomplete answer or response is treated as a failure to answer. Rule 37(a)(4).

*2 Under Rule 34(a)(1), a party may serve on any other party requests, within the scope of Rule 26(b), to produce or permit inspection of, among other things, “(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information.” Such requests “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected ... [and] must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection ....” Rule 34(b)(1)(A), (B). The party responding to a request for production must, “[f]or each item or category, ... either state that inspection ... will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Rule 34(b)(2)(B). “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Rule 34(b)(2)(C). A propounding party may move for an order compelling an answer or production to a request for production if the responding party fails to produce documents or fails to respond as requested under Rule 34. Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response is treated as a failure to answer or respond. Rule 37(a)(4).

“Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance. In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” United States v. McGraw–Hill Cos., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see alsoDIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”); Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

An action may only proceed as a class action in federal court if, among other things, the representative parties “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule 23(a)(4). A district court “must appoint class counsel” unless a statute provides otherwise, and in so doing, must consider, among other things, “counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action.” Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii). Although the appointment of class counsel is made by the district court and do not directly relate to a party's substantive “claim or defense,” “[d]iscovery has been permitted under Rule 23(g) by a number of federal courts and for good reasons.” Brown v. Tax Ease Lien Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 6939338, at *16 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2017); cf.In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig., 2018 WL 4200315, at *17 (D.N.M. Aug. 31, 2018) (relying upon Rule 23(g)(1)(C) to order production of materials relating to adequacy of counsel to adverse parties).

II.

DISCUSSION

A. The Nguyen Motion

1. Interrogatory Nos. 18-20

In the first disputed interrogatory, Interrogatory No. 18, Defendant asks Long Nguyen to: “Identify all legal settlements consummated by any of YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL in matters that were threatened or brought as a class action by providing for each settlement, the party names, case number, jurisdiction, date of settlement, and terms of settlement.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 5.

In Interrogatory No. 19, Defendant asks Long Nguyen to: “Identify all class action lawsuits filed by any of YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL in the last five years by providing for each lawsuit the party names, case number, and jurisdiction.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 11.

By Interrogatory No. 20, Defendant asks Long Nguyen to: “Identify all class action settlements in which any of YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL obtained or shared in any settlement payment by providing for each settlement the party names, case number, jurisdiction, date of settlement, and terms of settlement.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 16.

The Long Nguyen's supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18-20 are all the same, providing: “Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Responding party answers as follows: Responding party does not have personal knowledge but believes this information is publicly available.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 6, 11, 16.

*3 Defendant asserts Plaintiff's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18-20 are nonresponsive because: (1) the parties agreed to expand the definition of “YOU” and “YOUR” so that Plaintiff's counsel would provide the requested information; (2) Plaintiff's supplemental response fails to comply with Rule 33(b)(3); (3) the requested information is relevant to determine the adequacy of Plaintiff's counsel; and (4) Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct is in violation of Judge Selna's May 15, 2018 order. Jt. Stip. 1 at 10-12, 15-18, 21-23. Plaintiff counters that: (1) the expanded definition of “YOU” and “YOURS” related to interrogatories concerning a deceased consumer alleged in the Third Amended Complaint and not Plaintiff's counsel's class action litigation work; (2) Defendant seeks information that would require improper questioning of Plaintiff's counsel; (3) information concerning the adequacy of class counsel is disclosed in the declarations of Mike Vo and Dennis Riley submitted in support of the Motion to Class Certification; and (4) Defendant misrepresents the basis of Judge Selna's order. Jt. Stip. 1 at 9-10, 14-16, 19-21.

The Court finds that Interrogatory No. 19 seeks relevant information that is proportional to the needs of the case that is or should be readily available to Plaintiffs' counsel, and shall be provided in a supplemental response, signed by Plaintiffs' counsel and verified under oath by Plaintiff, which may be on information and belief. In so ruling, the Court relies upon Defendant's stated basis for relevance, that is, “[t]his discovery will reveal the extent of class action experience Plaintiffs' counsel has, which will in turn determine whether Plaintiffs' counsel is qualified and competent.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 1. Although the Court does not necessary agree with Defendant's conclusion, it does agree that the information sought by Interrogatory No. 19 is relevant to Judge Selna determination under Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii). The Court also finds that a response would not impose a substantial inquiry or undue burden upon Plaintiffs or their counsel, who bear the burden of showing class action experience, rendering the information proportional to the needs of the case. The Court has also considered that counsel already provided some information regarding adequacy of counsel in the form of declarations submitted in support of the motion for class certification; however, Plaintiff does not represent that the same information requested by Interrogatory No. 19 has been provided.

By contrast, the information sought by Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 20, prior class action settlements by Plaintiffs' counsel, tips over the thin reed of relevance. As noted, Defendant argues the relevance of the interrogatories is that they will “reveal the extent class action experience Plaintiff's counsel has.” Questions about settlement go beyond just determining the extent of class action experience, and substantially increase the burden and expense of responding. The Court notes that counsel on both sides have challenged the ethics of counsel on the opposing side, recognizes that a more expansive view of discovery could be warranted were legitimate concerns raised in the Motions about unethical or sanctionable conduct and responsive information bore upon such conduct (see In re Google AdWords Litigation, 2010 WL 4942516, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2010)), but finds that Defendant has not made such a showing in the Motions. Further, as class settlements typically, if not universally, require approval of a court, it is unclear what Defendant hopes to glean from settlements that, by definition, have been found reasonable by courts. The Court finds the information sought by Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 20 is not proportional to the needs of the case and denies the Nguyen Motion as to those interrogatories.

Accordingly, the Nguyen Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 19 and DENIED as to Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 20.

2. RFP Nos. 33-37

In the first disputed RFP, RFP No. 33, Defendant seeks “All non-privileged DOCUMENTS and electronically stored information concerning or relating to YOUR retention or engagement of LEGAL COUNSEL in this action.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 21.

*4 In RFP No. 34, Defendant seeks “All DOCUMENTS that evidence, constitute or refer to any solicitation by YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL for a class action plaintiff or class representative in any matter in the last 5 years.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 25.

In RFP No. 35, Defendant seeks “All DOCUMENTS that evidence, or constitute or refer to any demand letter threatening a class action lawsuit sent to any PERSON by YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL in the last 5 years.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 29.

By RFP No. 36, Defendant seeks “All DOCUMENTS, electronically stored information, COMMUNICATIONS, and tangible things which relate to, refer to, or evidence any class action demand letter sent to any PERSON by YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL in the last 5 years.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 34-35.

In RFP No. 37, Defendant seeks “All DOCUMENTS, electronically stored information, COMMUNICATIONS, and tangible things which relate to, refer to, or evidence any solicitation by YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL for a class action plaintiff or class representative in any matter in the last 5 years.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 39.

The responses to RFP Nos. 33-37 are all the same, providing: “Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information that is not probative of the issues and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information protect[ed] under the attorney client privilege and attorney work product protection. Without waiving said objections, responding party answers as follows: responding party has no responsive and non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control.” Jt. Stip. 1 at 21, 25, 29, 35, 39.

Defendant reasserts the same arguments it made regarding Interrogatory Nos. 18-20 regarding RFP Nos. 33-37. Jt. Stip. 1 at 22-24, 26-28, 30-32, 35-37, 40-42. Plaintiff reasserts the same also arguments made concerning the disputed interrogatories but as applied to the disputed RFPs. Jt. Stip. 1 at 24-25, 28-30, 33-34, 37-39, 42-44. Plaintiff adds: (1) Defendant improperly relies upon Rule 33(b)(3) because it only pertains to interrogatories; and (2) RFP No. 33 asks for all non-privileged documents concerning Plaintiff's engagement of counsel, but Plaintiff has already stated that he has no responsive and nonprivileged documents in his possession, custody, or control. Jt. Stip. 1 at 24, 28, 33, 37, 42.

Here, the Court finds the RFPs at issue seek discovery that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Any arguable, minimal relevance of documents concerning solicitations or demand letters by counsel within the last five years or legal retainers in this case to any party's claim or defense is more than offset by the burden and expense in comparison to its likely benefit and its importance in resolving the issues. See Rule 26(b)(1); see also Larsen v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp., 2011 WL 13131127, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011) (denying the defendants' motion to compel production of class action retainer agreements); In re Google AdWords Litigation, 2010 WL 4942516, at *3.

Accordingly, the Nguyen Motion as to RFP Nos. 33-37 is DENIED.

B. The Tran Motion

In the Tran Motion, for Interrogatory Nos. 16-18, Defendant makes the same arguments as it made in support of the nearly identical corresponding Interrogatory Nos. 18-20 in the Nguyen Motion. Compare Jt. Stip. 1 at 5-19 withJt. Stip. 2 at 5-19. Similarly, Defendant makes the same arguments in the nearly identical RFP Nos. 33-37 in the two motions. Compare Jt. Stip. 1 at 21-42 with Jt. Stip. 2 at 21-42.

*5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Tran Motion as to Interrogatory No. 17 and DENIES the Tran Motion as to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 18 and RFP Nos. 33-37 for the same reasons regarding the corresponding Interrogatory Nos. 18-20 and RFP Nos. 33-37 in the Nguyen Motion.

C. The Sanctions Request

As the Court has largely denied the relief sought in the motions, the Court finds an award of sanctions would be unjust. See Rule 37(b)(5). As a result, Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the forgoing reasons, the Motions (Dkt. 151 and 152) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff Long Nguyen is ordered to provide a supplemental response, signed by counsel and verified by Long Nguyen, fully responding to Interrogatory No. 19 within five days from the date of this Order.

Plaintiff Thuy Tran is ordered to provide a supplemental response, signed by counsel and verified by Thuy Tran, fully responding to Interrogatory No. 17 within five days from the date of this Order.

The motions (Dkt. 151, 152) are denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.