E & J GALLO WINERY, Plaintiff, v. ENCANA ENERGY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants Case No. CV-F-03-5412 AWILJO United States District Court, E.D. California Signed August 06, 2004 Counsel G. Kip Edwards, Law Offices of G. Kip Edwards, Kings Beach, CA, Joseph W. Cotchett, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, Steven N. Williams, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., San Francisco, CA, Timothy John Buchanan, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, LLP, William H. Littlewood, Dowling Aaron Inc., D. Greg Durbin, McCormick Barstow LLP, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff. David A. Battaglia, Heather L. Richardson, J. Christopher Jennings, James P. Fogelman, Richard P. Levy, Jason C. Lo, Matthew A. Hoffman, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Duane R. Lyons, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Louis E. Shoch, III, Maier Shoch LLP, Hermosa Beach, CA, William C. Hahesy, Law Offices of William C. Hahesy, Stephen R. Cornwell, Cornwell & Sample, LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants O'Neill, Lawrence J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ DOCUMENT PRODUCTION *1 In this action alleging natural gas price fixing, plaintiff E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Gallo”) seeks further document production from and an award of sanctions against defendants Encana Corporation (“Encana Corp.”) and WD Energy Services, Inc. (“WD Energy”). Based on the extensive volume of disputed document requests, this Court lacks the time and resources[1] to thoroughly discuss each disputed document request as it normally would and rules on the disputed requests as if they were questions or issues presented during trial. This Court admonished the parties, without assessing blame at the time and on the record, of the need to cooperate on discovery matters and to proceed professionally. Nevertheless, voluminous discovery disputes and lack of cooperation continue and give this Court little choice but to consider appointment of a master to address the parties’ discovery disputes at the parties’ expense. See F.R.Civ.P. 53(a)(1)(C). BACKGROUND Gallo and its glass subsidiary produce wine and wine bottles using natural gas. Gallo is one of California’s largest consumers of natural gas used to operate its furnaces. Encana Corp., a Canadian company, is North America’s largest independent natural gas producer and seller and does business in California through its subsidiaries. Encana Energy Services, Inc. (“EES”) was Encana Corp.’s indirect subsidiary and sales and marketing arm in the United States. Encana Corp. used EES to trade, hedge and speculate in natural gas, natural gas transportation contracts and natural gas market-based derivatives. EES changed its name to WD Energy Services Inc.[2] in early 2003. During April 2001 to June 2003, EES was Gallo’s sole marketer.[3] Gallo claims that when EES “ostensibly” worked with Gallo, EES conspired with natural gas marketers to artificially inflate natural gas prices and related commodities contracts. On April 9, 2003, Gallo filed this action to pursue against the Encana Corp. and WD Energy (collectively “defendants”) price fixing claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 16700, et seq., and claims for unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq.), and unjust enrichment, constructive trust and fraudulent transfer under California Civil Code, §§ 3439, et seq. Gallo alleges defendants manipulated and grossly inflated California natural gas prices and derivative markets. On July 22, 2003, Gallo served its first sets of document requests to defendants, comprising 141 individual requests to Encana Corp. and 138 individual requests to WD Energy. According to Gallo, the document requests include 134 common requests, seven requests unique to Encana Corp. and four requests unique to WD Energy. Gallo claims that 110 document requests of the respective sets to defendants are identical to those propounded to defendants by the plaintiff in the action entitled Stanislaus Food Products, Inc. v. PanCanadian Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. CV F 01-6149 AWILJO (“Stanislaus Food”). *2 On September 8, 2003, WD Energy served its responses to Gallo’s document requests. On that same day, this Court entered an order to stay this action pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) whether to centralize this action with related class actions. The stay was lifted January 14, 2004, and this Court issued a January 28, 2004 amended scheduling order to set, among other dates, a September 21, 2004 nonexpert discovery cutoff, a January 13, 2004 expert discovery cutoff, and a July 12, 2005 trial. On May 19, 2004, this Court entered a stipulated protective order. On May 14, 2004, Gallo filed its motion to compel defendants’ further document production and to impose a monetary sanction on defendants. On July 27, 2004, the parties filed their voluminous papers to address Gallo’s disputed document requests and the parties’ discovery problems. Gallo challenges defendants’ objections/responses that its document requests: (1) seek information/documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine; (2) are overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing; (3) seek irrelevant information or information not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence; (4) seek protected trade secrets, proprietary business information or confidential commercial information; (5) violate privacy rights of defendants’ employees; (6) are vague, ambiguous and unitelligible; (7) seek duplicative production of documents; (8) seek production of documents which may violate the Stanislaus Food settlement agreement; and (9) are argumentative. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947). F.R.Civ.P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. “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); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990). DOCUMENT REQUEST STANDARDS F.R.Civ.P. 34(b) requires a written response to a request for production to “state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated.” A party is obliged to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other things which are in its “possession, custody or control” on the date specified in the request. F.R.Civ.P. 34(a); Norman Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983). The propounding party may seek an order for further disclosure regarding “any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection requested.” F.R.Civ.P. 34(b). *3 F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5) addresses claims of privilege and provides: When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5) requires parties to provide a log or its equivalent when they withhold information on grounds of privilege or work product protection. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D. Kan. 1999). Failure to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5) “may constitute an ‘implied’ waiver of the privilege or protection.” In re Imperial Corp. of America, 174 F.R.D. 475, 477 (S.D. Cal. 1997). In addition, where hundreds of documents are requested, “blanket objections” to production based on privilege and/or attorney work product protection are improper, and privilege objections should be specific with respect to documents or other communications. Imperial Corp., 174 F.R.D. at 477. To facilitate its determination of privilege, a court may require “an adequately detailed privilege log in conjunction with evidentiary submissions to fill in any factual gaps.” United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 927, 117 S.Ct. 294 (1996) (quoting Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992). The privilege log should provide as to a document for which privilege is claimed: 1. The document’s general nature and description; 2. Identity and position of its author; 3. Date it was written; 4. Identity and position of all addressees and recipients; 5. Document’s present location; and 6. Specific reasons why it was withheld, that is, privilege invoked and grounds thereof. See Construction Products, 73 F.3d at 473-474. With these standards in mind, this Court turns to Gallo’s disputed document requests. ORDERS ON GALLO’S DISPUTED DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO WD ENERGY Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 40 and 41: Since WD Energy claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS WD Energy, no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 42 and 43: This Court ORDERS WD Energy, no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE all original trader tapes subject to the document request to a mutually agreed upon third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes and subject to non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or *4 2. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all trader tapes subject to the request and subject to a non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 3. SERVE a privilege log for all trader tapes subject to the request and either: a. PRODUCE all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the original trader tapes to a mutually agreed upon third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes; or b. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the trader tapes. Gallo’s Document Request No. 98: Since WD Energy claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS WD Energy, no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request No. 135: This Court ORDERS WD Energy, no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE all original trader tapes subject to the document request to a mutually agreeable third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes and subject to non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 2. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all trader tapes subject to the request and subject to a non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 3. SERVE a privilege log for all trader tapes subject to the request and either: a. PRODUCE all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the original trader tapes to a mutually agreeable third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes; or b. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the trader tapes. ORDERS ON GALLO’S DISPUTED DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO ENCANA CORP. Gallo’s Document Request No. 5: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request No. 11: The document request seeks documents between Encana Corp. and California utilities regarding transportation, delivery or purchase of physical natural gas. Gallo fails to explain the relevance of this overbroad request. This Court DENIES Gallo’s motion to compel as to the request. Gallo’s Document Request No. 12: The document request seeks all documents relating to the amount of physical natural gas Encana Corp. purchased from any person since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents for the period during April 2001 to June 2003. *5 Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 13-15: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 17-19: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, and given Gallo’s limitation to “policies, procedures and guidelines,” this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request No. 20: Gallo will accept summaries of documents relating to inventory of physical natural gas or natural gas basis in which Encana Corp. had an interest since January 1, 1999. Encana Corp. complains the limited request is overbroad. The scope of the request should be limited to April 2001 to June 2003, during which EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE summaries of responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003 for Gallo to specify which documents it seeks; or 2. PRODUCE responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 21 and 22: Encana Corp. vaguely responded that its has no responsive documents or that WD Energy will produce duplicative documents which WD Energy possesses. Encana Corp. fails to demonstrate the requested documents are irrelevant. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 3004, to: 1. PROVIDE further written responses to indicate whether it has responsive documents under its possession, custody or control; and 2. PRODUCE responsive documents under its possession, custody or control. Gallo’s Document Request No. 23: Gallo will accept summaries of documents relating to natural gas basis, swap transactions and physical natural gas purchased from sources other than Enron Online since January 1, 1999. Encana Corp. complains the limited request is overbroad. The scope of the request should be limited to April 2001 to June 2003, during which EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE summaries of responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003 2. PRODUCE responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 24: Encana Corp. vaguely responded that its has no responsive documents or that WD Energy will produce duplicative documents which WD Energy possesses. Encana Corp. fails to demonstrate the requested documents are irrelevant. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 3004, to: *6 1. PROVIDE a further written response to indicate whether it has responsive documents under its possession, custody or control; and 2. PRODUCE responsive documents under its possession, custody or control. Gallo’s Document Request No. 25: The document request seeks all documents relating to physical natural gas purchased or sold by Encana Corp. in the cash market from sources other than Enron since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE summaries of responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003 for Gallo to specify which documents it seeks; or 2. PRODUCE responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 26: The document request seeks all documents relating to Encana Corp.’s method or procedure to determine the value of its interest in natural gas basis, swap transactions and physical natural gas since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE summaries of responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003 for Gallo to specify which documents it seeks; or 2. PRODUCE responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 27: Gallo will accept policies, procedures and guidelines for Encana Corp.’s determination of profits and losses from Encana Corp.’s transactions in natural gas basis, swap transactions and physical natural gas since January 1, 1999. Encana Corp. complains the limited request is overbroad. The scope of the request should be limited to April 2001 to June 2003, during which EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce policies, procedures and guidelines for Encana Corp.’s determination of profits and losses from Encana Corp.’s transactions in natural gas basis, swap transactions and physical natural gas during April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 29: Encana Corp. will produce documents relating to its explanations why the price of natural gas basis was higher for the California market during the period from the fourth quarter 2000 to the end of the third quarter 2001. Gallo seeks documents beyond the scope of the California market. Encana Corp.’s limitation to the California market is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents limited to the California market. Gallo’s Document Request No. 30: The document request seeks all documents that relate to the relationship between the cost of electricity per kilowatt and the cost of natural gas to generate electricity in California since January 1, 1999. Gallo fails to substantiate that the requested documents are subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b), especially given the overbreadth of the request. This Court DENIES Gallo’s motion to compel as to the request. Gallo’s Document Request No. 31: Encana Corp. has agreed to produce responsive risk management documents. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to PRODUCE those responsive risk management documents which it has not yet produced. *7 Gallo’s Document Request No. 35: The document request broadly seeks all documents relating to all interests in the physical natural gas that Encana Corp. had on each day since January 1, 1999. The request is overbroad, and Gallo fails to substantiate it. This Court DENIES Gallo’s motion to compel as to the request. Gallo’s Document Request No. 36: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request No. 38: The document request seeks all documents relating to communications regarding the pricing of natural gas basis between Encana Corp. and all other suppliers of natural gas basis since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. Encana Corp. will produce documents limited to the California market, and such limitation is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003 for the California market. Gallo’s Document Request No. 39: Gallo offers to withdraw this request in exchange for incentive documents regarding WD Energy’s senior management and traders. Such offer is reasonable. This Court ORDERS defendants, no later than August 30, 2004, to produce all documents relating to incentives offered to WD Energy’s senior management and traders who engaged in trading of natural gas basis, physical natural gas, and swap transactions during April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 40: Encana Corp. seeks to limit the scope of the request to traders trading in the United States, not Canada. Gallo fails to substantiate that the responsive documents regarding exclusive Canadian traders are subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b) especially given the overbreadth of the requests. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents limited to traders trading in the United States. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 41 and 42: This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE all original trader tapes subject to the document request to a mutually agreed upon third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes and subject to non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 2. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all trader tapes subject to the request and subject to a non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 3. SERVE a privilege log for all trader tapes subject to the request and either: a. PRODUCE all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the original trader tapes to a mutually agreed upon third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes; or b. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the trader tapes. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 44 and 45: Encana Corp. seeks to limit the scope of the request to traders trading in the United States, not Canada. Gallo fails to substantiate that responsive documents regarding exclusive Canadian traders are subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b), especially given the overbreadth of the request. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents limited to traders trading in the United States. *8 Gallo’s Document Request No. 46: This request broadly seeks all documents relating to price history for physical natural gas and derivatives. According to Gallo, Encana Corp. agreed to produce responsive documents relating to physical natural gas at the California border. Such limitation is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents relating to physical natural gas at the California border. Gallo’s Document Request No. 49: This request broadly seeks all documents relating to bid and ask prices for physical natural gas and derivatives each day since January 1, 1999. According to Gallo, Encana Corp. agreed to produce responsive documents relating to sales and derivatives in the California market. Such limitation is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents relating to sales and derivatives in the California market. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 51 and 52: Based on Gallo’s offer and Encana Corp.’s acceptance, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce the 1999 Pan Canadian Petroleum Ltd. Interim and Annual Report. Gallo’s Document Request No. 54: Gallo will accept responsive documents regarding WD Energy if Encana Corp. confirms it engaged in no swap transactions in United States markets or with no counterparts in the United States and had no swap transactions involving delivery of natural gas to or from United States markets since January 1, 1999. Such limitation is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later August 30, 2004, to: 1. PRODUCE responsive documents regarding WD Energy; and 2. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and to STATE that Encana Corp. engaged in no swap transactions in United States markets or with no counterparts in the United States and had no swap transactions involving delivery of natural gas to or from United States markets since January 1, 1999. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 58 and 59: The document requests seek documents relating to physical natural gas supplied or transported to P.G. & E.’s gas transmission pipeline during 2001. Gallo emphasizes supply or shipping agreements for P.G. & E.’s Citygate pipeline. Limitation to supply or shipping agreements to the pipeline is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce 2001 supply or shipping agreements for P.G. & E.’s Citygate pipeline. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 60 and 61: The document requests seek documents relating to service agreements which Encana Corp. held for and nominations which Encana Corp. made on the GTN pipeline. Gallo claims the transactions and pipeline are at issue. Encana Corp. vaguely responded that its has no responsive documents or that WD Energy will produce duplicative documents which WD Energy possesses. Encana Corp. fails to demonstrate the requested documents are irrelevant. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 3004, to: 1. PROVIDE further written responses to indicate whether it has responsive documents under its possession, custody or control; and 2. PRODUCE responsive documents under its possession, custody or control. Gallo’s Document Request No. 62: The document request seeks documents relating to physical natural gas supplied by Encana Corp. to P.G. & E.’s gas transmission pipeline during 2000 and 2001. Gallo emphasizes supply or shipping agreements for the P.G. & E. pipeline. Limitation to supply or shipping agreements to the pipeline is reasonable. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce 2000 and 2001 supply or shipping agreements for the P.G. & E. gas transmission pipeline. *9 Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 68-70: Encana Corp. agrees to produce “requested documents, if any, to the extent they exist.” This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents and, if it lacks possession, custody or control of responsive documents, to serve its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and state in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents. Gallo’s Document Request No. 74: The document request seeks specific documents relating to the increase in Encana Corp.’s transportation services. Encana Corp. fails to justify its failure to produce the documents. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents. Gallo’s Document Request No. 77: Encana Corp. agrees to produce “requested risk management documents, if any, to the extent they exist.” This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce the risk management documents and, if it lacks possession, custody or control of the documents, to serve its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and state in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents. Gallo’s Document Request No. 81: The document request seeks specific documents relating to electronic files and market information. Encana Corp. fails to justify its failure to produce the documents. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents. Gallo’s Document Request No. 82: The document request seeks specific documents relating to forward price curves since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents for the period during April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 85: Encana Corp. agrees to produce “requested risk management documents, if any, to the extent they exist.” This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce the risk management documents and, if it lacks possession, custody or control of the documents, to serve its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position do so and state in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents. Gallo’s Document Request No. 87: The document request seeks documents relating to communications between Encana Corp. and any employee or representative of Natural Gas Intelligence since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents for the period during April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 96: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and *10 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request No. 97: The document request seeks specific monthly financial reports since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents for the period during April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 99 and 100: Encana Corp. agrees to produce “documents, if any, relating to decisions made by Calgary personnel regarding EES employee compensation.” This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce documents relating to decisions made by Calgary personnel regarding EES employee compensation and, if it lacks possession, custody or control of the documents, to serve its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and state in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 101 and 103: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request No. 107: This document request seeks all summaries and compilations of all market-to-market reports since January 1, 1999. Gallo has failed to substantiate that the requested documents are subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b), especially given the overbreadth of the request. This Court DENIES Gallo’s motion to compel as to the request. Gallo’s Document Request No. 108: This document request seeks certain monthly closing packages since January 1, 1999. Gallo has failed to substantiate that the requested documents are subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b), especially given the overbreadth of the request. This Court DENIES Gallo’s motion to compel as to the request. Gallo’s Document Request No. 109: The document request seeks specific margin or net revenue reports since January 1, 1999. The time frame is overbroad in that EES acted as Gallo’s gas marketer during April 2001 to June 2003. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents for the period April 2001 to June 2003. Gallo’s Document Request No. 120: This document request seeks documents relating to networks, servers, computer software, computer equipment and electronic mail systems shared by EES and Encana Corp. Gallo has failed to substantiate that the requested documents are subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b), especially given the overbreadth of the request. Gallo can pursue other avenues to attempt to prove its “interconnectedness of defendants.” This Court DENIES Gallo’s motion to compel as to the request. *11 Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 122 and 123: Since Encana Corp. claims it has no responsive documents, this Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to: 1. SERVE its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and STATE in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents; and 2. ATTACH to its declaration any further or additional discovered documents and to EXPLAIN in its declaration why such documents were not sooner provided. Gallo’s Document Request Nos. 124 and 125: Encana Corp. has agreed to produce responsive risk management documents. This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce those responsive risk management documents which it has not yet produced. Gallo’s Document Request No. 128-138: Encana Corp. agrees to produce “documents, if any, to the extent they exist.” This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to produce responsive documents and, if it lacks possession, custody or control of responsive documents, to serve its declaration under penalty of perjury by the person in the best position to do so and state in the declaration who searched for the requested documents, how it was determined who searched for the documents, and the efforts to locate and search for the documents. Gallo’s Document Request No. 139: This Court ORDERS Encana Corp., no later than August 30, 2004, to either: 1. PRODUCE all original trader tapes subject to the document request to a mutually agreed upon third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes and subject to non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 2. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all trader tapes subject to the request and subject to a non-waiver of applicable privileges and protections; or 3. SERVE a privilege log for all trader tapes subject to the request and either: a. PRODUCE all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the original trader tapes to a mutually agreed upon third-party custodian for Gallo’s access to the tapes; or b. PRODUCE to Gallo copies of all non-privileged, non-protected portions of the trader tapes. SANCTIONS Gallo requests to impose a monetary sanction against defendants but fails to request and justify a specify amount or to document its efforts to address the discovery dispute. If a motion to compel is granted, the court “shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require ... the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees, unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant’s first making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action, or that the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A). The standard for an award of expenses is whether there was substantial justification for the losing party’s conduct. Reygo Pac. Corp. v. Johnston Pump. Co., 680 F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir. 1982). The rationale for fee-shifting statutes, such as F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4) “is that the victor should be made whole – should be as well off as if the opponent had respected his legal rights in the first place.” Rickels v. City of South Bend, Indiana, 33 F.3d 785, 787 (7th Cir. 1994). A court “is afforded great latitude in imposing sanctions under Rule 37” and sanctions are reviewed “only for abuse of discretion.” Reygo, 680 F.2d at 649; David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 428-429 (9th Cir. 1977). *12 Without proper documentation, an award of sanctions is improper. In light of this Court’s rulings on Gallo’s motions, this Court surmises defendants and their counsel have obstructed Gallo’s legitimate discovery. This Court admonishes defendants and their counsel that if obstruction to Gallo’s legitimate discovery continues, this Court will sua sponte set a hearing to address imposition of sanctions against defendants and their counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The United States District Court, Eastern District of California experiences the second highest weighted caseload per judge of the district courts in the country. [2] WD Energy was sued in this action as EnCana Energy Services Inc. [3] Gallo entered into an April 26, 2001 natural gas sale and purchase agreement with Encana Corp.’s predecessor.