*1 On June 5, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation (Dkt. No. 137 (“Joint Stip.”)) regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Search Certain Custodians' Electronically Stored Information (Dkt. No. 136 (“Motion to Compel”)). On June 18, 2019, Defendants filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Compel. (Dkt. No. 153). The Court finds this discovery dispute appropriate for resolution without a hearing.[1] For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART.

A. Background

This case arises from the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiff's confidential and proprietary information by Defendants, in relation to a Request for Proposal issued by The Boeing Company to qualified manufacturers of tapered sleeve bolts in September 2018. (Joint Stip. at 5). Shortly after first learning that Defendants had taken and used its confidential and proprietary information, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, asserting claims for, inter alia, trade secret misappropriation. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 68). On March 11, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 113). Nonexpert discovery closes on June 28, 2019. (Dkt. No. 118).

B. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff previously agreed to collect documents from fifteen ESI custodians. (Joint Stip. at 4). Defendants now seek an order compelling Plaintiff to search an additional eight ESI custodians for documents responsive to Defendants' document requests. (Id. at 1). Specifically, Defendants seek ESI documents from custodians Herbert Aleman, Michael Milecki, Nicholas Marazzi, Anthony Pope, Jackie Mendias, Jason Dalton, Roger Cooke, and Dennis Shea. (Id.).

C. Discussion

Plaintiff contends that “[b]ecause the Motion [to Compel] seeks irrelevant, unreasonably duplicative, and disproportionate discovery, it must [be] denied.” (Joint Stip. at 7). The relevance of Defendants' discovery requests, however, is not at issue in this motion. Further, Plaintiff has agreed to the search terms to be used with the existing fifteen ESI custodians, which presumably are targeted to reach relevant information. (See Joint Stip. at 4) (“Plaintiff has agreed to collect documents from 15 ESI custodians and has made numerous targeted collections of documents relating to all relevant aspects of the dispute.”). As discussed more fully below, these same search terms will be used with any additional custodians. Moreover, to the extent that an ESI search of these additional custodians will uncover duplicative information, Plaintiff may use de-duplicating software to limit any burden of reviewing and producing duplicative documents.

As to Plaintiff's burdensome and disproportionate objection, the Court is unpersuaded. “It is well-established that the burden is on the objecting party to show grounds for failing to provide the requested discovery.” Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. CV 08-6237, 2009 WL 10655335, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009). The responding party cannot merely invoke generalized objections; rather, the responding party “must show specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each [discovery request] is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.” Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292, 296–97 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (citations omitted); accord Sherman v. CLP Res., Inc., No. CV 12-8080, 2014 WL 12850524, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014). Further, in the context of ESI discovery, “whether production of documents is unduly burdensome or expensive turns primarily on whether it is kept in an accessible or inaccessible format (a distinction that corresponds closely to the expense of production). Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (emphasis in original); accord Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 11-3892, 2012 WL 12884128, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012). Here, other than stating, in a conclusory manner, that its discovery efforts have been “costly and burdensome” and that the “burden and expense of collecting and reviewing [the additional ESI custodians] far outweighs their likely benefit,” (Joint Stip. at 11) (citation omitted), Plaintiff did not provide any declarations or other evidence establishing the nature and costs of its disproportionate burden. Nor has Plaintiff asserted that the ESI exists in an inaccessible format.

*2 Plaintiff's relevance, duplicative, and burdensome and disproportionate objections are OVERRULED, except as noted below.

1. Custodians Herbert Aleman and Michael Milecki

As discussed above, Plaintiff's duplicative and proportional objections to these proposed custodians (Joint Stip. at 9–13) are overruled. Plaintiff shall use the same search terms that it has agreed to use for custodians Cooper, Caplan, Espinoza, and Kinslow (Joint Stip., Ex. G) and apply those search terms to Aleman and Milecki for the period of 2004 through 2010.

2. Custodians Nicholas Marazzi and Anthony Pope.

As discussed above, Plaintiff's duplicative and proportional objections to these proposed custodians (Joint Stip. at 16–18) are overruled. Plaintiff shall use the same search terms that it has agreed to use for custodian Pardo (Joint Stip., Ex. G) and apply those search terms to Marazzi and Pope.

3. Custodian Jackie Mendias

As discussed above, Plaintiff's relevance, duplicative, and proportional objections to this proposed custodian (Joint Stip. at 20–23) are overruled. Plaintiff shall use the same search terms that it has agreed to use for custodians Cooper, Caplan, Espinoza, and Kinslow (Joint Stip., Ex. G) and apply those search terms to Mendias.

4. Custodians Jason Dalton, Roger Cooke, and Dennis Shea

Dalton, Cooke, and Shea were Plaintiff's attorneys, and involved in negotiations and communications regarding the purchase or licensing of the trade secrets at issue in this case. (Joint Stip. at 23, 29). Defendants have not plausibly asserted how these attorneys would have responsive, nonprivileged documents that would not otherwise be collected from the now existing 20 ESI custodians. Defendants contend that without Dalton's and Cooke's ESI, they would not receive “relevant documents concerning the negotiation and interpretation of the Asset Purchase Agreement, including drafts created and edited by Mr. Dalton or Mr. Cook [sic], and documents exchanged between Mr. Dalton or Mr. Cooke on the one hand, and opposing counsel, on the other hand.” (Joint Stip. at 24–25). Defendants, however, fail to explain how “negotiations” or “drafts” of the Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) are relevant to the trade secrets at issue in this case. Defendants have not explained why a fact finder would need to look beyond the APA itself to understand how Plaintiff acquired the trade secrets at issue in this case. Similarly, while the 2005 licensing agreement between PB Fasteners and SPS Jenkintown is of relevance in this case, Shea's “negotiation, understanding, and execution” of the agreement (Joint Stip. at 30) is not. Further, Defendants do not explain why in-house counsel would have the necessary technical expertise to have documents “pertaining to SPS Jenkintown's ability or inability to manufacture SLEEVbolts and components thereof to qualify with Boeing.” (Id.).

Defendants request to include Dalton, Cooke, and Shea as custodians is DENIED.

D. Conclusion

Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Search Certain Custodians' Electronically Stored Information is GRANTED IN PART. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, or any later date as agreed to by the parties, Plaintiff shall undertake a reasonably diligent search of the ESI of custodians Herbert Aleman, Michael Milecki, Nicholas Marazzi, Anthony Pope, and Jackie Mendias, and shall produce nonprivileged documents responsive to Defendants' existing discovery requests. Nevertheless, the parties are reminded that the nonexpert discovery cut-off is June 28, 2019, which “is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery ... is to be completed.” (Dkt. No. 118 at 3). If the parties are unable to complete their discovery by this deadline, they should seek an extension from the District Judge.[2] The hearing set for July 2, 2019, is VACATED.

*3 The parties may avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to resolve any remaining discovery issues. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

IT IS SO ORDERED.