*1 On November 6, 2019 defendants filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Written Discovery and Sanctions (docket no. 40), and noticed the hearing for December 10, 2019. The motion is supported by the declaration of defense counsel Laura Crane (“Crane Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. Defendants ask the court to compel plaintiff to provide substantive responses to defendants' first set of requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) and verify his responses to the first sets of interrogatories. Defendants also ask the court to award terminating or monetary sanctions. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

After reviewing the papers filed, the court found a hearing on the motion would not materially assist the court, and so took the hearing off calendar. The court now grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to compel and for sanctions for the reasons that follow.

On July 6, 2018, plaintiff Jeffrey Cook filed a civil rights action against defendants San Bernardino County Sheriffs Deputies Chris Jones and Cipriano Lopez alleging that defendants wrongfully detained him and used unreasonable force in an incident occurring on September 22, 2017. On August 7, 2019 defendants served plaintiff with their first sets of RFPs and interrogatories, responses to which were due by September 9, 2019. Crane Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6, Exs. C-D. Following an unsuccessful mediation between the parties on August 15, 2019, plaintiff's attorneys filed a motion to withdraw their representation, which was granted on September 9, 2019. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. After assuming self-representation, plaintiff failed to timely respond to defendants' discovery requests by the September 9, 2019 deadline. Id. ¶ 6.

On September 12, 2019, after defendants called plaintiff to request the discovery responses, plaintiff promptly responded to the thirty RFPs, but failed to respond to the eleven interrogatories. Id. ¶ 7, Ex. E. Shortly afterwards, plaintiff sent defendants five separate emails telling defendants to “grow up” and demanding to “see the judge.” Id. Subsequently, defendants sent plaintiff an email outlining the deficiencies observed in plaintiff's responses to the RFPs and requesting amended responses as well as responses to the interrogatories. Id. ¶ 8. In response, plaintiff sent defendants four emails in which he stated that did not understand the interrogatories and ordered defendants not to communicate with him by phone. Id. ¶ 9.

On September 13, 2019, plaintiff provided defendants with identical responses to the interrogatories, stating, “The whole case file is in your possession.” Id. ¶ 10, Ex. F. In response, defendants emailed plaintiff regarding the insufficiency of his responses and requested amended responses. Id. Defendants also requested to meet and confer in person the following day at a scheduled deposition. Id. On September 17, 2019, during a break in the deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, defense counsel attempted to further discuss the status of discovery with plaintiff, but plaintiff refused to speak with her unless it was in writing. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff also rejected defense counsel's offer to discuss the matter after the deposition. Id. Instead, plaintiff left the deposition before it concluded. Id.

*2 On September 19, 2019, defendants emailed plaintiff a copy of the amended scheduling order and reminded plaintiff that they were required to meet and confer. Id. ¶ 12. On that same day, plaintiff concluded an email to defendants stating, “Talk to you tomorrow.” Id. ¶ 13. Defense counsel then asked plaintiff if he would be meeting her the next day, but plaintiff did not respond. Id. Although plaintiff sent defendants seventeen emails between September 19, 2019 and September 23, 2019, none of those emails addressed their discovery dispute. Id. On September 23, 2019, defense counsel emailed plaintiff a copy of the draft joint stipulation and draft declaration with its anticipated exhibits and included a copy of Local Rules 37-2 to 37-2.4 to inform plaintiff of his discovery obligations. Id. ¶ 14. In response, plaintiff emailed defendants requesting that they ask him one question at a time. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff also stated, “I have a Masters in Education and you are too stupid to ask me a rational question.” Id. Plaintiff then invited defendants to participate in a telephone call if defendants agreed to record the call. Id. ¶ 16. The following day, defense counsel informed plaintiff via email that she did not have the technological capacity to record the call and again reminded plaintiff of his discovery obligations. Id. Defense counsel also sent plaintiff a copy of Rule 26 to help him understand his obligations. Id. Plaintiff responded by sending multiple emails outlining evidence he claimed to have and asking questions regarding appropriate responses to the RFPs. Id.

On September 25, 2019, plaintiff revised his responses to the interrogatories but refused to verify them. Id. ¶¶ 17-18, Ex. G. In response, defense counsel emailed plaintiff with instructions on how to verify his responses but plaintiff refused to do so. Id. ¶ 18. Instead, plaintiff emailed defendants stating, “Let's put this matter in Judge Bernal's hands....” Id. On September 26, 2019, defendants sent plaintiff a copy of the joint stipulation for a third time in both a word document and PDF format, and provided plaintiff with a form for completing his portion in an email, if necessary. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff responded stating, “I can't open the document, don't have word.” Id. Defense counsel continued to exchange emails with plaintiff until October 2, 2019, explaining how to verify his interrogatory responses and properly respond to RFPs, and informing plaintiff that the additional information he provided needed to be included in a supplemental initial disclosure. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff did not amend his responses to the RFPs or verify his responses to the interrogatories; rather, plaintiff continued to state that he has information regarding the witnesses and defendants but refused to provide it. Id.

The local rules of this court generally require that any motion to compel be filed in the form of a joint stipulation. L.R. 37-2. But that requirement is excused where a party has failed to confer as required by Local Rule 37-1. See L.R. 37-2.4. Given that plaintiff repeatedly ignored defense counsel's requests to meet and confer and submit his portion of the joint stipulation, defendants were not required to bring the motion in the form of a joint stipulation.

A. Plaintiff Is Ordered to Amend His Responses to the RFPs and Verify His Responses to the Interrogatories

Defendants request the court to compel plaintiff to provide amended responses to their first set of requests for production of documents and verify his interrogatory responses. Mtn. at 6. Defendants seek documents related to the September 22, 2017 incident and plaintiff's allegations of excessive force. See Crane Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E.

Under Rule 34, a party may request documents “in the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The responding party must respond in writing and is obligated to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Alternatively, a party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B).

Defendants served their first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on August 7, 2019, and plaintiff's responses were due no later than September 9, 2019. Crane Decl. ¶ 6. On September 12, 2019, plaintiff sent his responses to the RFPs which consisted of identical objections to each request, stating each document was protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege and privacy. Id., Ex. E. Defendants argue plaintiff's responses were untimely thereby waiving all objections. Mtn. at 7; see Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”). Further, even if the objections were not waived, defendants argue plaintiff's objections are deficient because they cite to inapplicable California statutes and plaintiff failed to state the bases for his privilege objections or include a privilege log. Mtn. at 7. The court agrees.

*3 Plaintiff's RFP responses consist largely of a series of asserted objections based on privacy, work product, and attorney-client privileges. See Crane Decl., Ex. E. Rule 26(b)(5)(A) requires parties withholding otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege must expressly claim the privilege and “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed ... in a manner that ... will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A).

In his objections, plaintiff cites to the California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034, Evidence Code, and case law concerning evidentiary and procedure rules that are inapplicable in this federal case. See Crane Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E. To the extent plaintiff is claiming privacy, attorney-client, or attorney work product privileges, plaintiff has failed to explain why such documents are privileged or subject to privacy. For example, in response to request for production number 17 in which defendants ask plaintiff to produce documents related to his allegation that he lost five teeth it would cost over $5,000 to repair as a result of the beating, plaintiff objected on the basis of privilege and explained that the $5,000 estimate by the other dentist would have allowed him to finish the $13,000 repairs he already started. Id., Ex. C. at 5; Ex. E at 7. But plaintiff fails to indicate whether he is withholding responsive documents, and if so, on what bases these documents are privileged. Thus, plaintiff's boilerplate objections fail to meet the Rule 26(b)(5) requirement. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2005) (boilerplate objections inserted into a response are insufficient to assert a privilege); Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Formally claiming a privilege should involve specifying which documents or class of documents are privileged and for what reasons, especially where the nature of the requested documents does not reveal an obviously privileged matter.”).

In plaintiff's objections, he also claims that any responsive documents are already in defendants' possession. See e.g., Crane Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E at 1 (“Picture of bruising. In your possession.”). To the extent plaintiff claims he is absolved of his discovery obligations because defendants may have the responsive documents, the court disagrees. Plaintiff has made no showing of undue burden in relation to producing responsive documents to the RFPs. See Holmes v. Toor, 2006 WL 1550201, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2006) (defendants must produce documents that are in their possession, custody, or control, even when equally available to plaintiff, unless defendants make a showing that doing so is unduly burdensome). As such, plaintiff must produce responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether he believes defendants already have these documents. See Walt Disney Co. v. DeFabiis, 168 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D. Cal. 1996).

Additionally, plaintiff is ordered to verify his responses to the first set of interrogatories as required by Rule 33(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court therefore orders plaintiff to promptly amend his responses to the first set of RFPs, produce non-privileged documents responsive to those RFPs, and verify his responses to the first set of interrogatories.

B. Sanctions Are Not Warranted

Defendants also request dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, or monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,106.00 to reimburse them for the costs to obtain an order compelling responses. Mtn. at 6. Rule 37(a)(5) provides that the prevailing party on a discovery motion is entitled to an award of its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing or opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, except 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 award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

*4 In this case, defendants have shown that they made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before bringing this motion. Nonetheless, the court finds that there are other circumstances that make an award of expenses unjust. In particular, plaintiff's counsel withdrew on the same day plaintiff's discovery responses were due, and upon being contacted by defense counsel, plaintiff promptly responded to the RFPs. Although plaintiff issued identical objections to each request, it appears plaintiff did not understand the requirements for asserting privilege and how to properly respond to the RFPs. See Crane Decl. ¶¶ 9, 16.

Even though plaintiff is facing difficulties in representing himself, he chose to bring this lawsuit, and it is his responsibility to comply with the law and court rules, including the rules of discovery, if he wishes to continue to pursue this case. His communications with defendants suggest he has not been taking this obligation seriously. Indeed, defendants' request for terminating sanctions – that is, dismissal of this case due to plaintiff's failure to discharge his discovery obligations – is not unreasonable. Nonetheless, in light of all these circumstances, in this instance defendants' request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Compel responses to written discovery and for sanctions (docket no. 40) is granted in part and denied in part. No later than December 27, 2019, plaintiff is ordered to amend his responses to defendants' first set of requests for production of documents, produce any non-privileged responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, and verify his responses to the first set of interrogatories. Defendants' request for sanctions is denied.

The court warns plaintiff that further failure to respond to the discovery requests as ordered herein may result in sanctions, which could include monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, and/or terminating sanctions.