*1 On August 5, 2020, defendant Centerra Group, LLC (“Centera”) filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories Nos. 20 and 21 and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 19, 20 (“Defendant's Motion”) with accompanying documents, including a Joint Stipulation (alternatively “JS”) with exhibits (“JS Ex.”), a declaration of defendant's counsel Sylvia J. Kim (“Kim Decl.”) with exhibits (“Kim Ex.”), and a declaration of plaintiff's counsel Ryan Crist (“Crist Decl.”) with exhibits (“Crist Ex.”). (Docket No. 47). Defendant's Motion essentially seeks to compel plaintiff to produce information/documents relating to his personal cellular telephone use during his employment. On August 18, 2020, defendant and plaintiff filed their supplemental memoranda (respectively, “D. Supp. Memo” and “P. Supp. Memo”).[1] Defendant's Motion is currently noticed for hearing before this Court on September 1, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.

The Court finds Defendant's Motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacates the September 1, 2020 hearing date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion and directs plaintiff to produce the below-specified discovery within fourteen (14) days.

II. PERTINENT BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2020, plaintiff Derik Duley filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (alternatively, “TAC”) – a putative class action – asserting multiple California state law labor claims against Centera. (JS Ex. B; Docket No. 27). Plaintiff was employed by Centera as a non-exempt or hourly paid employee for approximately 5 1//2 years until defendant discharged him in October 2018. (JS Ex. B/TAC ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that during such employment, defendant maintained a policy of requiring employees to remain on-call during their meal and rest periods, and implemented this policy by requiring employees to carry radios and respond to radio calls at all times. (JS Ex. B/TAC ¶¶ 15–19). Plaintiff also more broadly alleges that his meal and rest periods were also missed, shortened, taken late, and/or were interrupted because defendant required him to perform work duties during breaks, including assisting the supervisor when called upon with tasks such as opening secured room, searching for correct keys, and answering work related questions and direction from supervisors and coworkers. (JS Ex. B/TAC ¶¶ 58, 70). The District Judge dismissed certain claims in the Third Amended Complaint on June 18, 2020 and July 20, 2020. (Docket Nos. 40, 46). Defendant filed its Answer on July 16, 2020. (Docket No. 45).

On May 8, 2020, defendant served plaintiff by mail with its Interrogatories (Set One) (“Interrogatories” or “Interrogatory No[s].”) and its Requests for Production (Set One) (“RFP(s)” or “Document Request(s)”) (collectively “Written Discovery”). (Kim Decl. ¶ 2; Kim Exs. A, B). On June 10, 2020, plaintiff served his responses to the Written Discovery. (Kim Decl. ¶ 3; Kim Exs. C, D). As defendant viewed certain such responses to be deficient the parties thereafter met and conferred regarding the same, but were unable to resolve all of their differences. (Kim Decl. ¶¶ 4-8; Kim Exs. E-G; Crist Decl. ¶¶ 1-2). Defendant's Motion followed.

III. PERTINENT LAW

A. General Discovery Law

*2 Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties 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. 26(b)(1). Information within the foregoing scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). A party must respond to interrogatories by answer or objection; the ground for the objection must be stated with specificity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). General or boilerplate objections are improper – especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections. A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).

Pursuant to Rule 34, any party may serve on any other party a request for the production or inspection of documents within the scope of Rule 26(b) which are in the responding party's possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Documents are deemed to be within a party's possession, custody or control if the party has actual possession, custody or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand. In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 517 U.S. 1205 (1996). Accordingly, a party has an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its responses to discovery, and based on that inquiry, a party responding to a Rule 34 production request is under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably available to it from its employees, agents, or others subject to its control. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 189 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). For each item or category of document sought by a request for production, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

B. Labor Cases Involving Requests for Cell Phone Records Relied upon by Parties

Although the parties cite no binding authority regarding the discovery of personal cell phone use information/records, they do rely upon multiple district court decisions in California and New York which address the matter. The Court has reviewed and considered all such cases and summarizes the primary such cases upon which the parties rely below.

In Perez v. Safety Kleen Systems, Inc., 2008 WL 276384 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008), plaintiffs – customer service representatives (CSRs) for defendant – claimed, among other things, that defendant failed to provide rest and meal breaks. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs sought discovery of company records reflecting usage of company cell phones by plaintiffs and potential class members, arguing that such records were relevant to establish whether or not the CSRs were on duty or on call during their meal periods. Id.. Defendant argued that the cell phone records were irrelevant because they could not show whether a call occurred during a meal period as CSRs were able to take meals when and if they chose and had no set meal periods and because being on call for telephone calls did not cause an employee otherwise off duty to be on duty. Id.. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel, noting that defendant was relying on its own interpretation of when an employee was on duty/on call, that plaintiffs were entitled to discovery of non-privileged information which may lead to admissible evidence, that the cell phone records were a starting point, and that plaintiffs might be able to establish whether calls took place during meal breaks by other means. Id.

*3 In Crews v. Domino's Pizza Corp., 2009 WL 10672572 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2009), plaintiffs – employees of defendant – claimed, among other things, that they were not allowed adequate break time. Id. at *3. Defendant sought discovery of documents showing the time, date and duration of telephone calls made to/from plaintiffs' personal cell phones while they were in a store or logged onto the computer system, asserting that cell phone records were the only documentary evidence available to support its defense that plaintiffs took breaks and were not constantly working when they were in a store or logged onto the computer system. Id. at *1-*3. Plaintiffs argued that such information was irrelevant to the issues in the litigation, could only show plaintiffs' own inefficiency or violations of company policy and would not further defendant's case, and was private. Id. at *3. The court, relying in part on Perez, granted defendant's motion to compel the production of such records, finding that cell phone records indicating that plaintiffs engaged in personal conversation while on a work shift was directly relevant to plaintiffs' claim that they were not allowed adequate break time, and that defendant's need for the cell phone records to support its contention that plaintiffs had adequate rest periods outweighed plaintiffs' privacy interests. Id. at *3-*4.

In Quintana v. Claire's Boutique, Inc., 2014 WL 3371847 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2014), plaintiffs – employees of defendant – claimed, among other things, that they did not receive meal or rest breaks during their employment. Id. at *1. Defendant sought discovery regarding the personal activities in which plaintiffs engaged during their workdays – including records relating to a cell phone one of the plaintiffs admitted she had used during the period of her employment – to rebut such claims, arguing that cell phone records establishing that such plaintiff engaged in personal activities while on the clock and/or had the opportunity to take meal and rest breaks were relevant. Id. at *1. The court agreed, indicating that defendant could obtain such records and examine such plaintiff in reliance thereon to suggest that such plaintiff used her phone while taking a meal or rest break. Id. at *2. In doing so, the court overruled plaintiff's relevance and privacy objections, and further overruled plaintiff's objection that she did not have possession, custody or control of the records, in light of her failure to submit any admissible competent evidence establishing the same. Id. at*3.

In Perry v. The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group LLP, 2015 WL 4094352 (E.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2016), plaintiff – a paralegal who worked at the defendant law firm from October 2009 to March 2014– alleged that defendant failed to compensate her for the hours she worked per week in excess of forty and did not keep records of the hours she had worked. Id. at *1. During her deposition, plaintiff testified that she had occasionally made personal phone calls while at work. Id. at 1. Defendant thereafter sought discovery of her cell phone records for the period of her employment. Id. at 2. The court found that plaintiff's cell phone records were arguably and marginally relevant to the issue of how many hours she alleged she had worked for defendant each week at home and that defendants were entitled to test her assertions that her at-home work often took place after hours and long into the night. Id. at *4. However, it declined to compel plaintiff to turn over cell phone records corresponding to her entire period of employment – more than a four-year period – and, in order to balance defendant's entitlement to relevant information against plaintiff's concerns over the possibility of a fishing expedition, compelled the plaintiff to produce only a sampling of her cell phone records for the last three-month period during which plaintiff alleged that she had worked from home for up to ten hours per week. Id. at *4. The court indicated that defendant could seek additional records if the phone records supplied afforded it a good faith basis to do so. Id.

In Gonzalez v. Allied Concrete Industries, Inc., 2016 WL 4444789 (E.D.N.Y. Aug., 23, 2016), plaintiffs – construction laborers who formerly worked for defendant – claimed, among other things, that they had worked in excess of forty hours per week but were not paid overtime compensation. Id. at *1. Defendant sought discovery of plaintiffs' cell phone records from 2008 to 2016, claiming they would reveal whether plaintiffs had engaged in personal activities such as non-work related phone calls, extended phone calls, and frequent text messaging during times they claimed to have worked on defendant's behalf. Id. at *1, *4. The court denied defendant's motion to compel, distinguishing the case from Perry and other cases in which similar such records or a sampling thereof had been ordered produced based on the specific allegations at issue – which, in Gonzalez, did not include allegations that pertained to cell phones or their usage during breaks – and because there was no evidence that the plaintiffs had actually made personal calls while working. Id. at *4.

*4 In Calleros v. Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc., 2017 WL 4391714 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017), plaintiffs – ambulance crew employees – alleged that the employer defendant had failed to authorize and permit rest periods and, more specifically, that plaintiffs had not been provided with rest periods during which they were relieved of all duties because they were required to remain on call at all times and were required to carry pagers, cell phones, radios, or other electronic devices, to keep those devices on, and to remain vigilant and responsive to calls when the need arose. Id. at *1.[2] Defendant sought discovery regarding the personal activities in which plaintiffs engaged during their shifts – including the identity of plaintiffs' cell phone providers and cellular telephone bills/other records reflecting personal calls/ activities – arguing that such information would be relevant to whether or not plaintiffs had been provided compliant rest periods and had taken them. Id. at *2-*3, *5-*6. Plaintiffs did not claim that they did not engage in personal activities during the work day, but responded that it did not matter whether they had engaged in personal activity during their shifts because the only issue was whether they had been relieved of all duties during the rest period. Id. at *2 & n.2. Defendant countered that such argument assumed that plaintiffs' theory of liability was correct and prevented defendant from obtaining facts to support defendant's theory of liability. Id. at *2. The Court deemed the relevant inquiry to be whether and for how long plaintiffs engaged in personal activities, such as cellular phone calls, text messaging, or internet access and use, during the workday and granted the request for discovery of plaintiffs' cellular phone providers and cellular telephone bills/other records reflecting personal calls/activities, relying on Crews, Quintana, and Perez. Id. at *3, *5-*6.

In Trevino v. Golden State FC, LLC, 2019 WL 3892356 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019), plaintiffs – employees of defendant – claimed, among other things, that defendants uniformly and consistently failed to authorize and permit them to take timely, uninterrupted, net ten-minute, duty-free rest periods. Id. at *1. Defendant sought discovery evidencing any telephone calls, text messages, e-mails, and social media activity by plaintiffs that occurred during their shifts. Id. at *1. Defendants claimed that such records would help establish, among other things, how long each plaintiff took a break on a given workday. Id. at *4. Plaintiffs objected based on relevance, overbreadth, and burden. Id. at *2, *5. The court granted defendants' motion to compel plaintiffs to produce such records relying on Calleros, Crews and Quintana. Id. at *5-*6.

IV. DISCUSSION AND ORDERS

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff to produce information/documents responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 20-21 and RFP Nos. 18-20 (collectively “Discovery Requests in Issue”). As to all of the Discovery Requests in Issue, plaintiff interposed multiple objections and declined to provide substantive responses/responsive documents. (Kim Ex. C at 33-34; Kim Ex. D at 19-21). Plaintiff's responses to the Discovery Requests in Issue do not specify the objection(s) on which he has based his refusal to provide substantive responses/responsive documents. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (“An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”). It nonetheless appears to the Court from the Joint Stipulation that plaintiff's refusal to provide substantive responses/documents responsive to the Discovery Requests in Issue is predicated on the following objections: (1) relevance/overbreadth; (2) privacy; and (3) undue burden/proportionality. See JS at 12-17, 22-28, 34-40, 46-51, 57-63. In any event, the Court focuses on and addresses only the foregoing objections herein and overrules any other objections plaintiff originally interposed to the Discovery Requests in Issue upon which it may continue to rely.

A. Objections

First, plaintiff's relevance/overbreadth objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. Contrary to plaintiff's suggestion, it does not appear to the Court that the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint that defendant violated California law relative to meal and rest periods are limited to the theory that such violations occurred due to the policy of requiring employees to remain on-call, carry radios, and respond to radio calls during their meal and rest periods. As noted above, plaintiff also more broadly alleges that his meal and rest periods were also missed, shortened, taken late, and/or were interrupted because defendant required him to perform work duties during breaks, including assisting the supervisor when called upon with tasks such as opening secured room, searching for correct keys, and answering work related questions and direction from supervisors and coworkers. (JS Ex. B/TAC ¶¶ 58, 70). Because plaintiff's allegations encompass violations relative to meal/rest periods beyond those which are predicated solely upon being on call, plaintiff's use of a personal cell phone during at least assertedly “missed” meal/rest periods would undercut plaintiff's allegations and accordingly would be relevant. Plaintiff, relying upon Perry and Gonzalez, essentially suggests that the Discovery Requests in Issue are speculative because there is no affirmative evidence that plaintiff used his personal cell phone during working hours. The Court disagrees. The pervasive use of cellular telephones in current society,[3] the absence of an affirmative representation from plaintiff denying his use of a personal cell phone during work hours, and common sense lead the Court to infer that it is reasonably likely that plaintiff used his personal cell phone during regular work days such that the information/documents regarding plaintiff's personal use of cell phones during regular work days are at least marginally relevant.[4] With respect to plaintiff's suggestion that the information/records sought would not be probative because defendant does not track if or when meal/rest breaks occurred such that defendant could not assess from cell phone records whether meal/rest breaks corresponded with cell phone use, this Court agrees with Perez which indicated that cell phone records are a starting point, and that the party seeking such discovery (in this case defendant) might be able to establish whether personal calls/texts took place during rest/meal breaks by other means. However, the Discovery Requests in Issue which call for the production of information/documents regarding plaintiff's personal cell phone use do not limit themselves to personal cell phone use during work days and instead broadly encompass approximately a three-year period without excluding non-work days.[5] In light of the foregoing, to the extent the Discovery Requests in Issue call for information/documents relating to plaintiff's personal cell phone use during work days, plaintiff's relevance/overbreadth objections are overruled, but to the extent they call for information/documents relating to non-work days, plaintiff's relevance/overbreadth objections are sustained.

*5 Second, plaintiff's privacy objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. Where, as here, federal jurisdiction is founded on the diversity of the parties pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), state privilege law applies to discovery disputes. See Lawson v. GrubHub, Inc., 2017 WL 1684964, *1 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) (collecting cases); Brown v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 13377045, *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (applying California state privilege law in assessing privacy objections in CAFA case). In California, the right to privacy is set forth in Article I, Section I of the California Constitution. California courts have treated the right to privacy as a privilege in the discovery context, and, as such, have determined it is a right subject to invasion depending upon the circumstances. See, e.g., Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., 8 Cal.4th 30, 42-44 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 (1994); Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 7 Cal.4th 1, 37 (1994). Thus, “the privilege is subject to balancing the needs of the litigation with the sensitivity of the information/records sought.” Davis v. Leal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1110 (E.D. Cal.1999); see also Pioneer Elecs. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360, 371-75 (2007) (balancing privacy rights of putative class members with discovery rights of civil litigants). Here, to the extent the Court has ordered plaintiff to produce information/ documents as to which a privacy objection has been asserted, it has determined that plaintiff's privacy right is outweighed by defendant's need for the information/documents and that such information can be adequately protected by the Protective Order which the Court has concurrently issued. Farber, 234 F.R.D. at 191 (privacy concerns can be addressed by carefully drafted protective order).

Third, plaintiff's objections that certain of the Discovery Requests in Issue impose an undue burden and are not proportional to the needs of the case are sustained in part and overruled in part. Defendant has indicated it is amenable to limiting the scope of the information sought to only days spent working and to call times and duration, such that plaintiff may redact all telephone numbers and other identifying information from the cell phone records in issue. Plaintiff indicates that responding to the Discovery Requests in Issue would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case because it would require him to request access to his phone records for the approximately three year period in issue from the third party phone service provider, review every single day his phone was used within those three years to determine whether it was used during working time – an exercise which would require him to review hundreds of handwritten time entries listed on its time sheets with the phone logs to determine if each call/text message fit within the workday – and then redact out the pertinent information. Plaintiff estimates that completing the foregoing would take over 45 hours. Defendant suggests that plaintiff is unfairly trying to use defendant's willingness to compromise and accede to plaintiff's request to produce redacted versions of the information/documents to create a burden that would not exist but for plaintiff imposing it upon himself. As noted above, however, the Discovery Requests in Issue are overbroad at least to the extent they call for information regarding plaintiff's personal cell phone use other than during work days and defendant's concessions largely just cure such overbreadth. Having said that, the Court does agree with defendant that the burdens identified by plaintiff are largely self-imposed to protect his privacy and are unnecessary in light of the Protective Order being concurrently issued. But, the Court agrees with plaintiff that given what appears currently to be the limited relevance of the information/documents sought – discussed above in connection with plaintiff's relevance objections – requiring the production of all of the information/records sought at this juncture would not be proportional to the needs of the case, considering the factors set out in Rule 26(b)(1).[6]

B. Discovery Requests in Issue

*6 The Court's specific rulings relative the Discovery Requests in Issue are set forth below.

As to Interrogatory No. 20 – which essentially calls for plaintiff to identify his personal cell phone provider(s) for the period of September 19, 2015 to his last day of employment with defendant – plaintiff's objections are overruled and Defendant's Motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a supplemental response with the requested information within fourteen (14) days.

As to Interrogatory No. 21 – which essentially calls for plaintiff to provide his personal cell phone numbers for the period of September 19, 2015 to his last day of employment with defendant – plaintiff's objections are overruled and Defendant's Motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a supplemental response with the requested information within fourteen (14) days.

As to RFP No. 18 – which essentially calls for plaintiff to produce all documents reflecting his personal cell phone records (including logs of inbound/outbound calls/texts) for the period of September 19, 2015 to his last day of employment with defendant – plaintiff's relevance/overbreadth, privacy, and undue burden/proportionality objections are sustained in part and overruled in part and Defendant's Motion is granted in part and is denied in part without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to produce documents sufficient to reflect the dates, times and durations of inbound/outbound calls/texts to/from his personal cell phone(s) for work days/hours for the last year of his employment with defendant within fourteen (14) days.[7]

As to RFP No. 19 – which essentially calls for plaintiff to produce all documents other than his personal cell phone records reflecting any calls made to/from his personal cell phone(s) between September 19, 2015 and his last day of employment with defendant – Defendant's Motion is denied without prejudice in light of the Court's production order relative to RFP No. 18 and based upon proportionality.

As to RFP No. 20 – which essentially calls for plaintiff to produce all documents other than his personal cell phone records reflecting any text messages that he sent/received on his personal cell phone(s) between September 19, 2015 and his last day of employment with defendant – Defendant's Motion is denied without prejudice in light of the Court's production order relative to RFP No. 18 and based upon proportionality.

C. Request for Attorney's Fees/Expenses

To the extent the parties request attorney's fees/expenses/sanctions in connection with Defendant's Motion (JS at 63-64; P. Supp. Memo at 4-5), such requests are denied because, given the mixed nature of the Court's decision and its non-consideration of the exhibit to which plaintiff has objected, the Court concludes that an award of expenses would be unjust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff objects to defendant's filing of an exhibit with the D. Supp. Memo. (P. Supp. Memo at 4-5, referencing D. Supp. Memo exhibit). As the exhibit in issue is immaterial to the Court's assessment of Defendant's Motion, plaintiff's objection is moot and is overruled as such.

In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257, 269-71 (2016) – which was issued as modified on denial of rehearing on March 15, 2017, prior to the decision in Calleros – the California Supreme Court held that requiring security guards to remain on call during rest periods did not satisfy the employer's obligation to relieve the guards from their duties and employer control.

See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 385 (2014) (cell phones are “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”); see also Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2218 (2018) (“[I]ndividuals ... compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time.”); United States v. Cooper, 2015 WL 881578, *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015) (“Technological advances, coupled with declining cost, have rendered cell phones ubiquitous, and for many, an indispensible gizmo to navigate the social, economic, cultural and professional realms of modern society.”).

Plaintiff suggests that it would be more appropriate for defendant to depose plaintiff, ask him whether he used his personal cell phone during work days, and then, if plaintiff responds in the affirmative, seek further discovery regarding the same only at that juncture. If indeed plaintiff did use his personal cell phone during work days, plaintiff's suggested manner of proceeding would likely deprive defendant of the ability to ask plaintiff about the actual cell phone records at the deposition or result in a request or litigation seeking to compel a second deposition of plaintiff. In light of the probability that plaintiff used his personal cell phone during work days, the Court views it to be more efficient to allow defendant to obtain the records in issue before deposing plaintiff.

The fact that defendant has now agreed to limit the Discovery Requests in Issue to records which show whether and for how long plaintiff used his personal cell phone during work hours, does not alter the fact that the Discovery Requests in Issue, as originally propounded, called for information which is not relevant. The Court explains why this matters below.

As records produced pursuant to the Order may alter the proportionality analysis, nothing in this Order prohibits defendant from seeking records encompassed by the Discovery Requests in Issue which the Court has declined to order plaintiff to produce herein, if the records supplied pursuant to this Order afford it a good faith basis to do so.

Plaintiff may elect to produce redacted or unredacted records reflecting such information and may produce such records pursuant to the Protective Order issued by the Court.