*1 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 22. The parties have resolved various discovery disputes without engaging the Court, and the only enduring dispute involves Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 19. ECF No. 23 at 2. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion subject to the parties’ stipulated protective order. See ECF Nos. 21, 22.

This case centers on alleged employment discrimination. See generally ECF No. 6. Plaintiff alleges several causes of action: retaliation for making a workers compensation claim under Washington law, association discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), age and disability discrimination under Washington law and the ADA, and ERISA retaliation. ECF No. 6 at 12–16.

During discovery, Plaintiff propounded the following request for production on Defendant, among others:

ECF No. 22-1 at 7.

Defendant originally responded to Plaintiff's request as follows:

Id. After meeting several times to try to resolve this dispute, Defendant offered the following supplemental response:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery on:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. But “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery, the discovery requested must also be proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v. City of Fresno, No. 1:16–CV–653 DAD SAB, 2016 WL 7491634, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016).

*2 A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

Still, “general or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ 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). “The burden lies on the objecting party to show that a discovery request is improper. Where a party's objections are themselves vague and impermissibly overbroad, and no specifics are given, the objecting party fails to carry its burden.” Nei v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 326 F.R.D. 652, 656–57 (D. Mont. 2018) (quoting Russell v. Daiichi-Sankyo, Inc., No. CV 11-34-BLG-CSO, 2012 WL 1161435, *2 (D. Mont. Apr. 6, 2012)). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. The request “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). “For each item or category, 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. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). The requesting party “is entitled to individualized, complete responses to each of the [requests for production] ..., accompanied by production of each of the documents responsive to the request, regardless of whether the documents have already been produced.” Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... production, or inspection” when the information requested is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv); see also infra.

Plaintiff moves to compel, arguing the documents requested are relevant and necessary, especially on his ERISA claim. ECF No. 22 at 4–5. One of his theories involves an intervening event: Les Schwab's sale. Id. at 5. Plaintiff claims there is a high likelihood that Les Schwab and its selling agent, Goldman Sachs, discussed terminating employees with high-cost medical expenses as part of their sale strategy. See id.

Defendant counters that any information implicated in Plaintiff's request for production (1) is not proportional to the needs of this case because it provided documents that answer Plaintiff's factual questions, and (2) is irrelevant because the Les Schwab employee who terminated Plaintiff's employment knew nothing about the information sought in Plaintiff's request. ECF No. 30.

*3 Critically, Defendants’ objection does not state “whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of” its objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). “Rule 34 was specifically amended in 2015, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (Advisory Comm. Notes), to make such a statement mandatory.” Nei, 26 F.R.D. at 657. “The failure to clarify the existence of responsive materials ... hamstrings the Court's ability to assess the relevancy and proportionality of the discovery request.” Id. Defendant claims “[t]he disputed discovery request before the Court seeks highly confidential communications between Defendant and its financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, that are not proportional to the needs of this case.” ECF No. 30 at 2, 10. Yet this statement could be read to imply that there are confidential communications or documents responsive to Plaintiff's request for production. The Court finds Defendant's arguments about confidentially spurious, as the Court has approved the parties’ stipulated protective order. See ECF No. 20, 21. Because Defendant's objection skirts the issue of whether any responsive materials are being withheld, and it has the burden to show that Plaintiff's discovery request was improper, the Court overrules Defendant's objections on those grounds alone. See Nei, 326 F.R.D. at 657.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel.

DATED this 30th day of June 2021.