*1 On August 20, 2021, Defendant American Economy Insurance Company (“American”) filed a Motion To Compel To Provide Further Responses to First Set Of Interrogatories And First Request For Production Of Documents, and Request For Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”) from Plaintiffs Vepo Design Corporation, Emilia Keushkerian and Ovanes Kerian (“Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. 42.) The parties filed a Joint Stipulation on that same date. (Dkt. 42-2.) American filed a Supplemental Memorandum on September 7, 2021. (Dkt. 43.) Plaintiffs also filed a Supplemental Memorandum on September 7, 2021. (Dkt. 44.) The Court GRANTS the Motion in part and DENIES it in part.[1]

This case was removed from state court on June 4, 2020 based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs sue American for breach of contract and bad faith for failing to provide policy benefits regarding a fire that damaged a building Plaintiffs were demolishing. (Dkt. 23.) On March 12, 2021, American served its first set of interrogatories and first set of requests for production on each of the Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 42-1, Sveslosky Decl., ¶ 3.) After extensions and meet and confers, Plaintiffs served supplemental interrogatories and produced some documents on June 28, 2021. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiffs, however, did not serve supplemental responses to American's requests for documents. (Id., ¶ 8.) Nor did Plaintiffs produce a privilege log for any withheld documents. (Id., ¶ 10; JS at 133:7-17.) American's further efforts to obtain the requested discovery were unsuccessful, leaving the following discovery requests in dispute:

(1) Vepo's responses to Interrogatory (“Int.”) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20 and 24 and to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) Nos. 55, 56 and 57, and its production of documents in response to RPD Nos. 55, 56 and 57.

(2) Keushkerian's responses to Int. Nos. 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 and to RPD No. 46, and production of documents in response to RPD No. 46.

(3) Kerian's responses to Int. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 and to RPD No. 46, and production of documents in response to RPD No. 46.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that the Joint Stipulation is 146 pages in length containing 42 separate discovery disputes. The unusually large number of disputes tells the Court that the parties have not adhered to the mandate in Local Rule 37-1 to confer in good faith to eliminate or reduce the number of matters in dispute for the Court to resolve. The Court has no intention of resolving so many disputes and will require the parties to confer further in the manner directed below.

American's Int. Nos. 1 and 2 to VPO, Int. Nos. 19-22 to Keushkerian and Int. Nos. 16-19 to Kerian seek facts about Plaintiffs' allegations and contentions. American complains that Plaintiffs' responses to these interrogatories merely repeat the conclusory allegations of the complaint nearly verbatim without fully disclosing the factual basis of the allegations. Plaintiffs respond that they have disclosed all known facts in their possession at this time and will amend as additional facts are discovered. Plaintiffs also note that they verified their interrogatory responses. The verifications, however, do not have much value without facts, witnesses and documents to provide the foundation for Plaintiffs' contentions. Many of the statements made in the interrogatory answers would never be admissible for lack of foundation. This is Plaintiffs' case and it is in their best interests to disclose all information currently in their possession, custody and control if they have not done so.

*2 American notes numerous factual insufficiencies and seeks an order compelling production of proper responses but does not present any evidence that Plaintiffs are withholding any evidence in their possession. The Court cannot force a party to produce evidence it does not posses, There is, however, a remedy.

The Court appreciates that contention discovery early in the discovery process is problematic and often will require more time to answer. Plaintiffs therefore may have 45 days from the date of this Order to produce supplemental responses to all interrogatories, not simply those mentioned above. Plaintiffs will be barred from thereafter using in these court proceedings any information (facts, witnesses and documents) in Plaintiffs' possession, custody or control not disclosed at the time Plaintiffs serve their supplemental responses, absent substantial justification. Only information discovered after that date can be utilized in subsequent court proceedings. This procedure will guard against withholding of relevant information to American's prejudice and result in numerous assertions lacking foundation being found inadmissible. The Court admonishes the parties to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' supplemental responses in the manner mandated by Local Rule 37-1. Should the Motion come back to the Court, the Court expects far fewer disputes.

In regard to documents, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to serve written responses to RFP Nos. 55, 56 and 57 to Vepo and RFP No. 46 to Keushkerian and Kerian within 45 days of this Order. The Court also ORDERS Plaintiffs to produce any relevant non-privileged documents responsive to RPD Nos. 55, 56 and 57 to Vepo and No. 46 to Keushkerian and Kerian within 45 days of this Order, not previously produced. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs to file an initial privilege log as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(5) within 45 days of this Order. The privilege log should include any relevant documents responsive to any interrogatory or document request that were withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege or work-product. The Court ORDERS each of the Plaintiffs (not counsel) to file a verification under oath and subject to penalty of perjury that all relevant non-privileged documents in their custody, control or possession responsive to all interrogatories and requests for production have been produced, within 45 days of this Order.

As to objections, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' boilerplate objections of privacy, legal opinions from a lay witness, equally available, overbroad, oppressive, relevance and proportionality as these objections are unsupported by any facts or explanations. See Walker v. Lakewood Condominium Owners Ass'n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“Boilerplate, generalized objections to an interrogatory are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all”); A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“boilerplate objections ... are improper”). These objections do not meet the “specificity” standard of Rule 33(b)(4) for objections.

Further in regard to Plaintiffs' privacy objections, this case involves state law claims and was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1,) Thus, California law governs on issues of privilege/privacy. Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Here, Plaintiffs failed to conduct the analysis required for state privacy objections in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 Cal.4th 1 (1994). Additionally, as American notes, Vepo's privacy objections also fail because corporations have no privacy rights. Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp., 147 Cal. App. 3d 770, 791 (1983). Plaintiffs may not withhold documents based on their privacy objections for all the reasons stated herein and because a Protective Order has been entered to protect alleged private information from disclosure outside this litigation. (Dkt. 41.)

*3 The Court also rejects Plaintiffs' reliance on Rule 33(d) to answer numerous interrogatories by referring American to “Plaintiff's document production, the operative complaint and documents to be produced.” (JS 15.) As explained in Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 313, 322-23 (C.D. Cal. 2004), a party electing to avail itself of Rule 33(d) must “specify where in the records the answers [can] be found,” citing Rainbow Pioneer v. Hawaii Nevada Inv. Corp, 711 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit found inadequate a reference to “partnership books of accounts, banking accounts, records, computer printouts, ledgers and other documents” because the party failed to specify precisely where in the records the requested inforomation could be found. Id. at 906; Cambridge, 227 F.R.D. at 322. Plaintiffs' reference to generalized documents is inadequate. Plaintiffs may not rely on Rule 33(d) or mention it in their supplemental responses. Kraft Americas LP v. Oldcastle, Inc., 2013 WL 12125759*5 (C.D. Cal.)

The Court also rejects Plaintiffs' argument that American is seeking information in its Motion that is not within its Requests. The Requests are broad enough to encompass the information sought by the Motion.

In its Rule 26(f) Report, Plaintiffs claim economic losses (including lost profits, consequential damages, non-economic damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest and punitive damages). (Dkt. 34 at 4-5.) Plaintiffs estimated their economic losses at $1.2 million. (Id. at 5.) American seeks specific calculations and information regarding each item of claimed damages in Int. Nos. 3-6, 8-10 and 18-20 to Vepo, Nos. 5, 11, 13, 14 and 24 to Keushkerian and Nos. 1, 3-4 and 21 to Kerian. Plaintiffs seek to defer most of the damages interrogatories and argue that American's requests seek the premature disclosure of expert witness information, expert reports and/or expert work product, citing In re Convergent Technologies Secur. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 336 (N.D. Cal. 1985). The Central District, however, rejected In re Convergent in Kraft Americas, supra, 2013 WL 12125759*6-*8 (C.D. Cal.), a case Plaintiffs do not address. Judge Kronstadt upheld a magistrate judge's order compelling answers to interrogatories, indicating that the propounding party was entitled to discovery of the opposing party's current information in its possession, custody or control. Id. at *5. Indeed, requiring answers to factual contention interrogatories is consistent with Rule 11 of the FRCP, which requires that Plaintiffs must have some factual basis for the allegations in the complaint. Cable & Computer Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 652 (C.D. Cal. 1997). See also Geer v. Cox, 2003 WL 21254731*3 (D. Kan. 2003) (“prematurity objections to damages discovery requests are generally disfavored ... It is no answer for a plaintiff to say he will need discovery or to consult with an expert ... He should have answered the interrogatories with such information as he then possessed, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) supplemented his answers”). Thus, Plaintiffs here must answer the interrogatories with what information they currently possess and later supplement their answers with expert information as it is produced according to the Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs should provide supplemental answers to the above damages related interrogatories within 45 days of this Order.

Plaintiffs will have to answer Int. No. 24 and produce the documents requested in Nos. 56 and 57 to Vepo, within 45 days of this Order. The documents requested are directly relevant to Plaintiffs' business interruption claim. Rule 34(b)(1)(C) provides that a Request “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” American's Request No. 56 specifies that Plaintiffs are to produce native electronic accounting files used to record laundromat transactions. Courts have ordered production in native format unless the responding party can demonstrate that to do so would be unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate. In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Plastic Coolant Tubes Prod. Liab. Litig., 279 F.R.D. 447, 450 (S.D. Ohio 2013); Cenveo Corp. v. Southern Graphic System, 2009 WL 4042898*1-*2 (D. Minn.). Federal courts have ordered production of documents in native format despite overbreadth objections. Federal Trade Comm'n ex rel Yost v. Educare Ctr. Servs., Inc., 2020 WL 4334119*5-*6 (W.D. Tex.)

*4 The Court also ORDERS Plaintiffs to produce within 45 days of this Order documents regarding other insurance claims responsive to RPD No. 55 to Vepo and No. 46 to Keushkerian and Kerian. The Court does not find anything unreasonable about the ten year period for these Requests. Keushkerian's and Kerian's privacy objections, already rejected, are further meritless because they seek to recover for personal property losses (not business losses) and thus have put their personal claims directly at issue in this case and cannot refuse production. Herbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2008 WL 425941*8 (loss history relevant).

As to sanctions, American generally prevailed here except as to timing. As already noted, some of Plaintiffs' positions were not persuasive. In a number of instances, Plaintiffs' positions were without factual and legal support or basis, i.e., not substantially justified. The Court therefore will award sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37(a)(5)(A), but will reduce the amount requested of $13,299.50 (Sveslosky Decl., ¶ 11) by half to $6,649.75 to be paid within 10 days of this Order.

American should review its discovery requests and consider withdrawing any that are unimportant or where Plaintiffs' responses are arguably sufficient. After Plaintiffs serve their supplemental responses, document production and privilege log in accordance with the rulings above, the parties are to meet and confer in the manner mandated by Local Rule 37-1 to reduce or eliminate disputes. The Court admonishes both parties that, this being a Court order, any violation of it brings into play the full panoply of sanctions relief in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).

The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and thus vacated the September 21, 2021 hearing date. (Dkt. 45.) See F. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 5-15.