Linda Scroggins v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Case No. ED CV 18-1213-JGB (SPx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed June 18, 2019 Counsel Kimberly I. Carter, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: None None, Court Reporter / Recorder, Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Pym, Sheri, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [48] *1 On May 21, 2019, plaintiff Linda Scroggins filed a motion to compel defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's responses to requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Docket no. 48. The motion is supported and opposed in a Joint Stipulation (“JS”). Plaintiff's arguments are supported by the declaration of Margie Rene Potter (“Potter Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. Defendant's arguments are supported by the declarations of Danielle H. Moore (“Moore Decl.”) and Megan E. Walker (“Walker Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum (“P. Suppl. Mem.”) on May 28, 2019. Docket no. 49. The supplemental memorandum is supported by the declaration of Margie Rene Potter (“Potter Suppl. Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. The parties came before the court for a hearing on this motion on June 11, 2019. After considering the arguments advanced and the record before it, the court now grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for the reasons discussed below. I. BACKGROUND[1] Plaintiff began employment with defendant in 1997 and continued until September 2017. Her last position was a Corridor Manager at defendant's San Bernardino Center, a position she held for twelve years before her termination. Plaintiff alleges she faced discriminatory treatment and a hostile work environment from supervisors and coworkers based on her race, age, and gender. She alleges she received a threatening letter related to her race between 2003 and 2005. Alicia Marquez, Manager of Train Dispatchers, allegedly mistreated plaintiff from 2002 to 2011. From 2007 to 2015, plaintiff's acting superintendent, John Ready, allegedly was unprofessional and degrading towards plaintiff. David Johnson, the director of defendant's San Bernardino location, allegedly subjected plaintiff to harassment and discrimination. In 2014 or 2015, Johnson promoted Jon Stofer to Corridor Manager and gave him the day shift over plaintiff, even though plaintiff had seniority. Defendant's phone system is recorded twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to the knowledge of its employees. The corporate office in Omaha uses a recording program to record conversations of those using the phone system. In February 2016, plaintiff reviewed audio recordings of Stofer, and alleges she discovered racist, sexist, and ageist comments about her and others by Johnson and Stofer. Plaintiff also discovered a marked decrease to her annual bonuses and merit increases since Johnson became the director. Plaintiff was eventually terminated shortly before retirement age. On June 8, 2018, plaintiff served her Requests for Production of Documents on defendant, and on June 19, 2018, served her Interrogatories and Requests for Admission on defendant. Potter Decl. ¶ 3. After a one-week extension, defendant served its responses to plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. The parties agreed to a mutual discovery extension, after which defendant requested one-week extensions on three separate occasions to respond to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. Id. ¶¶ 8-10. *2 On August 13, 2018, defendant served its responses to plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. Id. ¶ 11. The parties then met and conferred telephonically on August 21, 2018 to discuss defendant's responses to plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, which plaintiff believed to be deficient. Id. ¶¶ 9, 14. The parties agreed to defendant's production of certain audio recordings and collective bargaining agreements. Id. ¶ 14. On August 23, 2018, defendant informed plaintiff the documents would be produced shortly. Id. ¶ 15, Ex. 12. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff had not received the documents and followed up with defendant, who responded it was still continuing to collect documents. Id. The parties met and conferred telephonically on October 11, 2018 at plaintiff's request about defendant's responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admission and the pending discovery from defendant. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Defendant committed to produce all responsive audio recordings on or before October 26, 2018 and to serve amended discovery responses to plaintiff's Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on or before November 7, 2018, and emails pursuant to electronically stored information (“ESI”) on or before December 3, 2018. Id., Ex. 16. Defendant then produced a portion of plaintiff's requested audio recordings on October 26, 2018, many of which were ones plaintiff had already produced to defendant. Id. ¶ 19. Defendant explained it had produced all the recordings it had obtained so far and was currently busy with other matters, but would continue to work with plaintiff. Id., Ex. 17. Defendant requested another one-week extension in November, and served its amended responses to Requests for Production of Documents and two copies of collective bargaining agreements on November 14, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 21-22, Exs. 19, 20. On the same day, defendant provided a draft ESI protocol. Id. When plaintiff followed up with defendant on December 12, 2018 regarding defendant's supplemental responses to Interrogatories and production of the remaining responsive documents, defendant explained it was awaiting client approval for document production and amended responses to the Interrogatories. Id. ¶ 23, Ex. 21. Plaintiff provided defendant with her proposed changes to the ESI protocol on December 14, 2018. Id. ¶ 24, Ex. 22. On December 20, 2018, defendant produced additional documents, including partial supplemental and amended responses to the interrogatories, stating it still needed to amend some responses pursuant to the ESI protocol. Id. ¶¶ 26-27, Exs. 23, 24. On January 7, 2019, plaintiff followed up with defendant about the ESI protocol, to which defendant responded on January 11, 2019, stating the current protocol yielded too many hits. Id. ¶¶ 28-29, Ex. 25. On January 24 and 25, 2019, the parties exchanged communication about editing the ESI protocol. Id. ¶ 30, Ex. 26. Plaintiff agreed to defendant's proposed changes to the ESI protocol on January 28, 2019. Id. ¶ 32, Ex. 28. On March 25, 2019, defendant served the supplemental responsive documents. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. The parties met and conferred at plaintiff's request on March 29, 2019. Id. ¶ 40. At this time, the parties agreed April 19, 2019 would be a hard deadline to provide amended responses to discovery requests. Id. The parties then continued to discuss discovery, and on April 9, 2019, defendant informed plaintiff it was too burdensome to produce all training materials, and requested plaintiff provide a limited scope of the same. Id. ¶ 46. The parties also discussed redacted complaints. Id. ¶¶ 45-47. On April 18, 2019, defendant requested an extension to respond to the outstanding requests, which plaintiff denied. Id. ¶ 49. On April 19, 2019, defendant produced some documents responsive to the requests, but not all. Id. ¶ 50. Plaintiff informed defendant on April 20, 2019 that there were missing documents. Id. Defendant responded by stating plaintiff had also inadvertently failed to serve documents responsive to discovery requests. Id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff corrected the error on April 22, 2019. Id. Defendant indicated it would need more time with respect to the training materials before it could amend its responses. Id. ¶ 53. *3 On April 25, 2019, plaintiff provided defendant with a list of the documents still missing, and further requested defendant produce certain documents in color. Id. ¶ 54. On May 1, 2019, defendant served additional documents and an updated privilege log. Id. ¶ 55. On May 16, 2019, defendant requested to meet and confer with plaintiff to resolve the outstanding issues between the parties. Moore Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. P. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum on May 28, 2019. In her supplemental memorandum, plaintiff withdrew the portions of the Joint Stipulation addressing the Interrogatories and Requests for Production Nos. 10, 11, 14, and 37 because defendant served amended responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production on May 17, 2019. P. Suppl. Mem. at 2; Potter Suppl. Decl. ¶ 7. Accordingly, the court now addresses the remaining issues in the Joint Stipulation, some of which were also resolved by the time of the hearing, as discussed below. A. Discovery Standards Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) permits “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). To be relevant, the information sought “need not be admissible in evidence”; however, it must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. In determining the needs of the case, the court “consider[s] 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. A “relevant matter” under Rule 26(b)(1) is any matter that “bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 57 L. Ed. 2d 253 (1978). Relevancy should be “construed ‘liberally and with common sense’ and discovery should be allowed unless the information sought has no conceivable bearing on the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992)). B. RFP No. 12 Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) No. 12 asks defendant to produce any and all documents which refer or relate to plaintiff's retirement benefits, pension, account, and/or records. JS at 26. Defendant objected but stated it would produce all responsive records within its possession, custody, or control. Id. Defendant stated it was currently in the process of identifying such responsive documents and would produce them on a rolling basis as they are located and become available. Plaintiff argues no new documents have been identified or produced, and defendant's response is open-ended and does not indicate whether it is in possession, control, or custody of responsive documents or identify a deadline by which the documents will be produced. Id. at 25. At the hearing, the parties reported they have resolved their dispute as to RFP No. 12, with defendant to provide a written response verifying it has produced all the responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Thus, there is no dispute remaining for the court to resolve as to RFP No. 12. C. RFP No. 13 RFP No. 13 asks defendant to produce any and all documents which refer or relate to any training or guidance defendant provided to plaintiff regarding her job. JS at 27. Defendant made the following objections: the request is impermissibly overbroad, calls for legal conclusion, evaluation, and/or opinion, seeks information protected by privilege, beyond the reasonable scope of permissible discovery, and vague and ambiguous. Id. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, defendant stated it would produce plaintiff's training records within its possession, custody, or control. Id. Lastly, defendant stated discovery and investigation continue and it reserved the right to supplement its response. Id. at 28. *4 Plaintiff argues it has not received new documents from defendant other than a list of trainings plaintiff received. Id. Plaintiff claims she clarified the scope of the training materials sought, that is, she was seeking responsive documents regarding trainings she received regarding harassment, discrimination, retaliation, management, submitting complaints, reporting violations, and training specific to performing her job as a corridor manager. Id. Defendant argues it sought clarification about the scope of plaintiff's request on April 9, 2019, but plaintiff did not respond until April 23, 2019. Id. (citing Potter Decl., Ex. 40; Walker Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. J). Defendant states it is in the process of locating and pulling the training materials, and there are fifty courses spanning nineteen years. Id. Defendant also states it provided plaintiff with a list of trainings it had identified in the categories described by plaintiff and asked if there were any further limitations that could be made. Id. at 29; Moore Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. P. In her supplemental memorandum, plaintiff states she returned defendant's list of trainings with highlighted sections on May 17, 2019 but has no received any training materials. P. Suppl. Mem. at 3; Potter Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6, Exs. 63, 64. At the hearing, the parties revealed there had been a miscommunication when they exchanged lists of highlighted training materials. Having discovered the miscommunication, plaintiff agreed to limit RFP No. 13 to the 50 items highlighted by defendant. The remaining issue is how quickly defendant must provide the agreed documents. Defendant states it is trying to track down the materials, and believes it may need another two months. Plaintiff of course wants the materials sooner. The court appreciates that the training materials span almost two decades and so may take time to locate. At the same time, these documents were first requested a year ago, and it appears defendant has been working to gather the training materials for at least a few weeks now. Considering the burden to defendant and plaintiff's need for these documents, the court orders that defendant must complete its production of the agreed documents in response to RFP No. 13 by July 30, 2019, unless otherwise agreed by plaintiff or ordered by the court. Further, defendant must produce responsive documents to plaintiff on a rolling basis, as they are located, such that a substantial portion of the documents should be produced in the next month. D. RFP No. 17 RFP No. 17 asks defendant to produce any and all documents which refer or relate to names, race, gender, and earnings, including pay, awards, bonuses, increments, merits, stock options, and award of points for all of defendant's employees in the position of Corridor Managers at defendant's San Bernardino Center for the period from 2004 to present. JS at 30. Without waiving and subject to its objections, defendant responded it was currently inquiring as to whether a report could be run to include information pertaining to defendant's San Bernardino Corridor Managers from 2004 to present that includes race, gender, and earnings, excluding all identifying information such as names. Id. Plaintiff argues defendant previously agreed to and did produce some documents responsive to this request, showing age, race, gender, and pay of the Corridor Managers, with names and other personal information of employees redacted, but defendant has not produced all responsive documents. Id. at 31. Specifically, plaintiff claims defendant failed to produce pay information for Corridor Managers at the San Bernardino Center starting from 2004, the year plaintiff became a Corridor Manager, and pay information from 2016 to the present. Id. Plaintiff also claims defendant failed to produce pay information for the year 2014 for one of the corridor managers despite defendant's agreement to produce all documents responsive to this request or meet and confer about the scope of the request on or before April 19, 2019. Id. Plaintiff argues defendant has not claimed the production responsive to this request is burdensome and has not made any attempt to meet and confer. Id. *5 Defendant states it produced documents responsive to this request on May 1, 2019, but human error resulted in one employee's salary history being reported twice and another's salary history not at all. Id. at 32. Defendant stated it informed plaintiff on May 16, 2019 that the missing report is for an individual who held the position for only one month well over a decade ago and is now in a senior position that does not allow the report to be easily run. Id.; Moore Decl., Ex. P (stating defendant had run into “permission issues in obtaining the report”). At the hearing, plaintiff stated she was still seeking documents showing the ages of and stock value received by most of the 20-odd persons who worked as corridor managers since 2004. Defendant correctly points out that RFP No. 17 does not request documents reflecting age. Defendant does not object to providing stock information for the five corridor managers who worked during the period covered by plaintiff's claim, but does not agree to plaintiff's stock information for the managers who predate that period. Plaintiff argues the earlier information is relevant to show an ongoing pattern of discrimination. Since RFP No. 17 does not request age information, the court will not compel production of documents with such information. The court will order defendant to produce documents with stock value information for corridor managers going back to 2004. The court finds such information may be relevant to show whether there was a longstanding pattern of discrimination, and as plaintiff notes, defendant has not identified any significant burden in producing such documents. E. RFP No. 32 RFP no. 32 asks defendant to produce any and all documents which refer or relate to any and all person(s) and/or positions who create, change, and implement defendant's EEO Policy. JS at 32. Defendant made the following objections: the request is impermissibly overbroad, calls for a legal conclusion, evaluation, and/or opinion, seeks information protected by privilege and third party privacy rights, beyond the scope of permissible discovery, and vague and ambiguous. Id. After exchanging arguments regarding the scope and propriety of the request, including privacy concerns, defendant reported that on May 17, 2019, the parties agreed defendant would provide the names of the relevant individuals who “create, change, and implement [defendant's] EEO Policy” and it is currently in the process of identifying the relevant individuals. Id. at 36. In her supplemental memorandum, plaintiff states she informed defendant she was not requesting the personnel records of these persons and accepted defendant's offer to receive the names informally, if provided no later than May 20, 2019. P. Suppl. Mem. at 3; Potter Suppl. Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 63. At the hearing, the parties reported they had reached an agreement that defendant would just provide the names of the persons who create, change, and implement defendant's EEO policy. Plaintiff seeks the names from 2003-16, and defendant stated it could provide these names in one month. With such understanding, no dispute remains for the court to resolve with respect to RFP No. 32. F. RFP Nos. 33 and 34 RFP no. 33 asks defendant to produce any and all documents which refer or relate to any and all complaints received by defendant's value hotline for the period 2011 to the present. JS at 36. RFP no. 34 asks defendant to produce any and all documents which refer or relate to any and all complaints received by defendant's value hotline from defendant's employees at defendant's San Bernardino Center for the period 2011 to present. Id. at 46. Without waiving and subject to its objections, in response to both requests defendant agreed to produce all internal complaints received by defendant's EEO Committee/Panel from San Bernardino employees from 2011 to the present pertaining to alleged race, age, and/or gender harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. Id. at 34, 46. *6 Plaintiff argues that although defendant produced some documents responsive to this request, it has failed to produce any unredacted versions of complaints revealing the name of the complainants. Id. at 36. She states she agreed to limit her request to internal complaints which contain similar allegations against the same persons plaintiff alleged in her Second Amended Complaint. Id. Plaintiff argues she is seeking limited information on narrow topics, with respect to certain individuals/harassers, and defendant's privacy objections should not hold. Id. at 37. Plaintiff argues courts have applied more liberal civil discovery rules in the context of employment discrimination cases. Id. Plaintiff further argues employees cannot reasonably expect privacy protections concerning their participation in workplace harassment, discrimination, or retaliation investigations because the employer is legally required to investigate and remedy those allegations. Id. at 40. She argues she needs this information to properly assess the evidence for her claims. Id. Defendant argues it did not redact the names of any individuals plaintiff identified as alleged wrongdoers (Johnson, Stofer, Marquez, Ready) over the course of her employment, only the names of innocent unrelated third-parties. Id. at 44 (citing Walker Decl. ¶ 6). Defendant states the document production contains no other complaints of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation against Johnson or Stofer. Id. Therefore, plaintiff effectively is requesting defendant unredact the names of employees alleging discrimination and harassment against unrelated actors, a former romantic partner of Marquez, and Ready. Id. Defendant states plaintiff alleges she only worked with Marquez until 2011, which is outside the statute of limitations for her claims. Id. at 45. Defendant also argues plaintiff did not name Marquez or Ready in her complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Defendant states plaintiff listed February 4, 2016 as the earliest date of harassment in her complaints (citing Moore Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. N). Id. Defendant therefore concludes incidents involving Marquez and Ready, with whom plaintiff stopped working with in 2011 and 2015 respectively, are unlikely to be relevant or admissible. Id. Defendant argues the employees' complaints are legally protected because they contain sensitive information about their own experiences. Id. at 46. Defendant argues the nonparty employees have a reasonable expectation that defendant will not hand over their names freely. Id. In her supplemental memorandum, plaintiff states her May 17, 2019 letter to defendant limited her request of unredacted names to the identity of parties who complained against Ready, based on plaintiff's allegation of a continuing violation of harassment and that defendant allowed a culture of discriminatory and harassing supervisors like Ready to exist and permeate plaintiff's work environment. P. Suppl. Mem. at 4; Potter Decl., Ex. 63. At the hearing, plaintiff confirmed she is now simply seeking the unredacted names of those who complained against Ready. Defendant continues to oppose this for the reasons already stated. In a diversity jurisdiction case such as this one, state law governs matters of privilege. Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine, Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Fed. R. Evid. 501. The right to privacy is set forth in the California Constitution. Cal. Const. art I, § 1. This right is not an “absolute bar to discovery,” and “may be subject to invasion.” E.E.O.C. v. California Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391, 395 (E.D. Cal. 2009); John B.v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. 4th, 1177, 1199, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316, 137 P.3d 153 (2006). Courts may balance the need for information against the claimed privacy right. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1984)); see Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604-05 (C.D. Cal. 1995). In striking this balance, “invasion of the right to privacy must be drawn with narrow specificity and is permitted only to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 552 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (overruled on other grounds) (internal citation omitted). *7 In Foster v. ScentAir Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 4063160 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014), the court considered whether plaintiff was entitled to internal complaints regarding sexual discrimination made by other employees to defendant. 2014 WL 4063160, at *2. The court noted employees' personnel records are confidential and protected unless plaintiff could show a compelling need for the documents, and the information could not reasonably be obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources. Id. (citing Harding Lawson Assocs. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 7, 10 (1992)). The court found plaintiff had not shown a compelling need for the confidential personnel documents or that the information could not be reasonably obtained through other sources. Id. The only privacy interests at issue here are those of the persons who made complaints against Ready. The court granted a protective order in this case on August 20, 2018, which goes a fair way toward addressing those privacy interests; however, the names would still be revealed to plaintiff's counsel and others involved in this litigation, possibly contrary to the complainants' wishes. Plaintiff has limited the complaints at issue to those of the same or similar nature as plaintiff alleges here, and to that extent she has limited the names she now seeks to those likely to have relevant information. Yet as defendant points out, Ready's conduct is not at the heart of plaintiff's claims, although it may support plaintiff's allegations regarding a culture of discrimination. Yet without more information about the particular complaints at issue here, the court cannot say plaintiff has a compelling need for this information. Accordingly, the court will not compel the production of the unredacted names on this record, but will give plaintiff an opportunity to submit more information. Specifically, if plaintiff believes she has a compelling need for these unredacted names based on the redacted complaints against Ready that have been produced, she may submit the redacted complaints to the court. The court would then review them and determine which, if any, pages must produced to plaintiff without redaction. G. RFP No. 38 RFP no. 38 asks defendant to produce any and all audio recordings which refer or relate to communications between Jon Stofer and David Johnson from 2011 to present. JS at 48. Defendant incorporated all prior objections into its response. Id. Without waiving and subject to the foregoing objections, defendant responded it was currently inquiring into whether it could identify any and all recordings between Johnson and Stofer through a search of their work telephone numbers. Id. Defendant stated it would produce all responsive records that it identifies within its possession, custody, or control, and it was currently in the process of identifying all such responsive documents and would produce them on a rolling basis as they are located and become available. Id. at 48-49. Plaintiff argues defendant has failed to produce any audio recordings between the identified employees. Id. at 49. Plaintiff states defendant objected that it was too burdensome to pull audio recordings and the request invaded its employees' privacy. Id. Plaintiff argues she is seeking audio recordings in a narrowed period of time, recordings on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays between 3:30 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. California time, and only on extension 4282, the extension used by San Bernardino Corridor Managers. Id. Plaintiff states she narrowed the request to dates that Stofer's schedule intersected with Johnson after 2011 through October 31, 2015. Id. at 50. Plaintiff alleges these recordings are likely to contain additional conversations about plaintiff, African American persons, and women, similar to what was on the recordings the parties had currently exchanged. Id. *8 Defendant argues it has already produced all of the recordings identified by plaintiff in her internal complaint against Johnson. Id. at 52. Defendant states Corridor Managers and Train Dispatchers (two roles performed by Stofer since 2011) are frequently communicating over the phone and radio, which results in a significant portion of their workdays being recorded. Id. at 52-53. Defendant provides an example that in January 2016, there were 4,734 recordings for the Corridor Manager's desk in San Bernardino, each with an average call time of approximately two to three minutes. Moore Decl. ¶ 7. Because Stofer worked that desk approximately 25% of the time, 1200 recordings would be attributed to him in one month, approximately 49 hours of recordings for one month. Id. This data over the course of eight years would yield 591 hours per year, or over 4,500 hours of recordings. Id. Defendant argues identifying and downloading the recordings alone would take hours but the production would require full time review by employees and defense counsel. JS at 53. Defendant estimates the review would take 40 hours a week for 17 weeks to review the recordings, making the discovery not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. Id. Defendant argues plaintiff has no evidence or indication from documents or witnesses in the case that additional recordings are relevant. Id. In her supplemental memorandum, plaintiff disputes defendant's characterization of the difficulty in retrieving the audio recordings. P. Suppl. Mem. at 4. Plaintiff cites to a deposition of the HR director during the investigation of plaintiff's complaints. Id. The director testified she often requested audio recordings for certain time periods when investigating complaints, and was usually able to get them within a couple of days, such as within one or two days. Id.; Potter Suppl. Decl., Ex. 58. Plaintiff also points out Corridor Managers have the authority and ability to pull audio recordings themselves. Id.; Potter Suppl. Decl., Ex. 72. Plaintiff provides examples in which she was able to access recordings quickly. Id. at 5. Plaintiff further states she agreed to limit the calls to that particular extension, and to one hour prior to Johnson's start, when Johnson would call Stofer from his cell phone on his way in to work. Id.; Potter Suppl. Decl., Ex. 63. Plaintiff states she requested defendant to let her know if it would produce recordings within those parameters, but defendant did not respond. Id. At the hearing, plaintiff stated she is now just seeking recordings from 2014 and 2015, with the same day, time, and extension limitations set forth above. Plaintiff argues these recordings are important for her to establish Johnson's motivation. Defendant maintains even with the limitations offered the request is too burdensome. Defendant represented that plaintiff seeks calls from some 240 shifts, with each shift averaging one 15-minute call between Johnson and Stofer. Each call would need to be separately retrieved manually, and each would need to be reviewed for privilege. Even though it may be routine for defendant to pull audio recordings, it is not routine for defendant to pull so many. Further, the court appreciates the additional burden imposed by the need to review recordings in litigation. Yet although the burden imposed by plaintiff's request here is significant, it is not unreasonable or disproportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiff has carefully limited the request such that she now seeks only recordings most likely to contain relevant discussions. Further limitation would not be reasonable, and plaintiff has demonstrated a strong need for them. Accordingly, the court will compel defendant to produce the responsive recordings plaintiff now seeks, as limited as discussed above. Based on defendant's time estimates given before plaintiff so limited RFP No. 38, the court believes defendant should be able to complete the production by July 30, 2019. The court therefore orders that defendant must complete its production of audio recordings responsive to RFP No. 38, as limited by plaintiff, by July 30, 2019 unless otherwise agreed by plaintiff or ordered by the court. H. Sanctions Plaintiff requests sanctions on three grounds. JS at 68. First, plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states the prevailing party on a discovery motion is entitled to an award of its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing or opposing the motion. Id. Rule 37(a)(5) states no payment should be ordered if: (1) the motion was filed before the moving party made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute; (2) the losing party's position was substantially justified; or (3) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Second, plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(ii), which states a court may order sanctions if a party fails to serve answers to interrogatories. Id. Third, plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 37-4, which states the failure of counsel to comply with or cooperate in meet and confer procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions. Id. Plaintiff argues defendant served deficient responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, and failed to meet and confer in good faith. Id. Plaintiff therefore requests sanctions against defendant in the amount of $14,000. Id. at 69 (citing Potter Decl. ¶¶ 63-65). *9 Defendant argues sanctions are not warranted because plaintiff has sought a substantial volume of documents and information, which defendant provided and continues to provide as it continues to search for responsive documents. Id. Defendant states it cannot provide plaintiff with supplemental responses she has requested until its production is complete, and plaintiff did not provide responses to its request for clarification on April 9, 2019 until April 23, 2019. Id. Defendant states it has worked extensively and in good faith to search for and produce all responsive documents. Id. The court finds sanctions are not warranted. The parties have met and conferred consistently throughout the discovery process, with defendant requesting extensions in an effort to meet plaintiff's discovery requests. There is no indication these extensions were sought in bad faith. Although plaintiff is justifiably frustrated by how long it has taken, the parties were able to resolve most of their disputes. Of those that were not resolved, the court has ruled for plaintiff in some respects and defendant in others. Even where the court ruled against defendant, its position was substantially justified. As such, plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. III. ORDER Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to compel (docket no. 48) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. Footnotes [1] The court draws the information in this section from the Second Amended Complaint (docket no. 31).