Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Aisen
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Aisen
2016 WL 11783768 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
October 14, 2016

Burkhardt, Jill L.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Failure to Produce
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel in part, ordering Defendant to provide further responses to eight requests for admission and four interrogatories related to access to and the ownership, possession, custody, and control of the Amazon Account and its contents. The Court emphasized the importance of ESI, as the Amazon Account contains the EDC and ADCS data and computer systems, which are relevant to Plaintiff's claims.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL S. AISEN et al., Defendants.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
Case No.: 15-cv-1766 BEN (JLB)
United States District Court, S.D. California
Filed October 14, 2016

Counsel

Derek S. Hecht, Daniel M. Glassman, Crowell & Moring LLP, Irvine, CA, Mark A. Romeo, Littler Mendelson, Irvine, CA, J. Daniel Sharp, Crowell & Moring, San Francisco, CA, Pilar Stillwater, Stillwater Law Office, San Francisco, CA, Janet Levine, Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Laura Schwartz, Crowell & Moring, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Amardeep Lal Thakur, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, John B. Quinn, Michael Ernest Williams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Los Angeles, CA, Steven Geoffrey Madison, Matthew Alexander Bergjans, Viola Trebicka, Justin C. Griffin, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Paul S. Aisen, Jeremy Pizzola, Deborah Tobias, Gustavo Jimenez-Maggiora, Phuoc Hong, University of Southern California.
Steven Geoffrey Madison, Justin C. Griffin, Michael Ernest Williams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Elizabeth Shaffer, Devon Gessert, Kelly Harless.
Burkhardt, Jill L., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

*1 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. (ECF No. 114.) Also before the Court are Defendants'[1] Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 115) and Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition (ECF No. 118). Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents presented, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 114) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
 
I. BACKGROUND
This case concerns the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), a research program founded by Plaintiff The Regents of the University of California (“UCSD”). (ECF No. 114-1 at 2.) Plaintiff hired Defendant Paul Aisen as the Director of the ADCS in or around 2007. (Id.)
 
To support the ADCS, Plaintiff developed a computer system, the Electronic Data Capture (“EDC”), which receives, monitors, and analyzes data from clinics around the country. (Id.) The “live” EDC was originally housed on servers at UCSD's San Diego Supercomputer Center, and data was backed up on an Amazon Web Services cloud account, no. 6751328646 (the “Amazon Account”), which was purchased and maintained by UCSD. (Id.) At some time in early 2015, the live EDC and all ADCS data were transferred to the Amazon Account, and the named owner of the Amazon Account was changed from UCSD to Defendant Aisen. (Id. at 2–3.)
 
In or around June 2015, Defendant Aisen and other individual Defendants resigned from UCSD. (Id. at 3.) At the same time, Defendant University of Southern California (“USC”) founded the Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute (“ATRI”), naming Defendant Aisen as a founding director of the program. (Id.) Plaintiff contends the ATRI is comprised of the ADCS research studies and that Defendants have been accessing and using the Amazon Account containing the EDC and ADCS data and computer systems to operate the ATRI. (Id.)
 
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants USC, Aisen, and other individually named Defendants in the San Diego Superior Court on July 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1-3.) On August 4, 2015, the San Diego Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to “restore to The Regents the sole management and control of all ‘ADCS Data and Systems,’ defined as follows: all electronic data and computer systems of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (“ADCS”) and any research studies administered by or coordinated through the ADCS, including the Electronic Data Capture (“EDC”) system and data thereon currently hosted on Amazon Web Service Account No. 6751328646 ....” (ECF No. 114-3 at 27–28.)
 
The action was removed to this Court on August 10, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 8, 2015, alleging, among other things, claims of conversion of data and other tangible property, and the commission of computer crimes pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(c). (ECF No. 16 at 37–40.)
 
*2 Defendants USC and Aisen moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint on September 22, 2015 (ECF No. 29), and the Court granted their motion in part on April 18, 2016 (ECF No. 79). The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's § 502 computer crimes claim and granted the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's conversion claim with respect to the conversion of data. (Id. at 13–18.)
 
Plaintiff now seeks a court order compelling Defendant USC to provide further responses to eight requests for admission and four interrogatories that relate to access to and the ownership, possession, custody, and control of the Amazon Account and its contents. (ECF No. 114-1 at 2.)
 
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing the parties to obtain discovery regarding ‘any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
 
A. Requests for Admission
Rule 36 authorizes a party to “serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Rule 36 provides that if a matter is not admitted, the responding party's answer “must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Rule 36 further provides that “when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Id. “The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Id. If the court finds that “an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.” Id.
 
B. Interrogatories
Rule 33 authorizes a party to serve interrogatories that “may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “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). Rule 37 provides that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond,” and a party may move for an order compelling an answer from a party who fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)–(4).
 
III. DISCUSSION
A. Relevancy of the Discovery Plaintiff Seeks to Compel
Defendant's Opposition argues Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be denied because it seeks to compel irrelevant information. (ECF No. 115 at 12–13.) Specifically, Defendant argues that “[n]early all discovery at issue here relates to ownership of and access to” the Amazon Account, and “[t]he Court's rulings on the parties' motions to dismiss rendered this account utterly irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims.” (Id.)
 
*3 The Court finds Defendant's argument unavailing. In ruling on Defendants Aisen and USC's motion to dismiss, the Court denied the motion as to Plaintiff's § 502 claim on the grounds that Plaintiff's allegations that “Aisen and USC knowingly accessed UCSD's computer systems and made use of the data there without UCSD's permission” and “that UCSD's access was disrupted and that data was deleted from the UCSD computers and computer systems” were sufficient to state a § 502 claim, and that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which may preempt common law claims for the misappropriation of information and data, does not preempt Plaintiff's statutory § 502 claim. (ECF No. 79 at 14–15.) As Plaintiff's computer system and all ADCS data were transferred to the Amazon Account (ECF No. 114-1 at 2), discovery related to Defendant's access to or use, possession, custody, or control of the Amazon Account is relevant to Plaintiff's claims.
 
B. Requests for Admission
1. Request for Admission No. 3
Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 3 asks Defendant USC to “[a]dmit that Defendants, whether considered individually or collectively, are not owners of Amazon Web Services Account No. 675713428646.” (ECF No. 114-3 at 3.) Defendant USC responded, “Defendant admits it does not own the Amazon account but denies that the Amazon account is owned by Plaintiff.” (Id.)
 
Plaintiff, in its Motion to Compel, contends that Defendant's response is incomplete and evasive, as it admits only that Defendant USC is not the owner of the Amazon Account and fails to address the individual Defendants in this case. (ECF No. 114-1 at 4–5.) In addition, Plaintiff contends that because the Request does not inquire about Plaintiff's ownership of the Amazon Account, Defendant's response is non-responsive, argumentative, and in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. (Id. at 5.)
 
Defendant, in its Opposition, argues that Plaintiff's assertion that the response is incomplete or evasive is “phony” because “USC confirmed in writing it would ‘agree to amend its response to include the Individual Defendants' if that were the only dispute.” (ECF No. 115 at 7.) In addition, Defendant argues that it is permitted under Rule 36 to qualify an admission “where, as here, the RFA, although containing some truth, standing alone out of context of the whole truth conveys unwarranted and unfair inferences.” (Id. at 8 (internal citations omitted).)
 
Plaintiff, in its Reply, asserts that a qualified admission “is one that admits only part of a request,” and as Defendant acknowledges in its answer that it must admit the entire matter requested by Request for Admission No. 3, that should be the end of the response. (ECF No. 118 at 3.)
 
For the reasons below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to Request for Admission No. 3 is GRANTED. First, Defendant's answer is incomplete. Plaintiff's request asks Defendant to “admit that Defendants, whether considered individually or collectively, are not owners” of the Amazon Account. (ECF No. 114-3 at 3 (emphasis added).) Defendant's response that Defendant USC does not own the Amazon Account does not respond fully to Plaintiff's request. Defendant cannot simply ignore a portion of Plaintiff's request and then declare Plaintiff's motion to compel to be “phony” because Defendant “agree[d] to amend its response to include the Individual Defendants if that were the only dispute” Plaintiff raised. (ECF No. 115 at 7 (emphasis added).) A conditional, theoretical agreement to respond is not a response. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an amended answer to its request.
 
Second, to the extent Defendant's answer denies that Plaintiff owns the Amazon Account, Defendant's answer is gratuitous and improper. Rule 36 requires a responding party to either admit or deny a request for admission or state in detail why it cannot truthfully admit or deny it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Here, Defendant (to the extent it answered Plaintiff's request) admits the entire statement it was asked to admit. Thus, under Rule 36, Defendant's admission should be the end of its answer.
 
*4 While Rule 36 allows for the qualification of an admission “when good faith requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4), the Court is not persuaded such circumstances exist here. “Generally, qualification is permitted if the statement, although containing some truth, ... standing alone out of context of the whole truth ... convey[s] unwarranted and unfair inferences. Diederich v. Dep't of Army, 132 F.R.D. 614, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (citations omitted); Collins v. JC Penney Life Ins. Co., No. 02-cv-0674 L (LAB), 2003 WL 25945842, at *11 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2003) (citing Diederich). Here, Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 3 does not contain only “some truth” that, when taken out of the context of the whole truth, could convey unfair inferences absent a qualification. Defendant admitted the matter at issue in its entirety. Defendant's answer required no qualification.
 
Furthermore, even if a qualification of Defendant's answer was warranted (which the Court concludes it was not), the Court is not persuaded that Defendant's qualification was offered in good faith. While Defendant explains in its Opposition that it qualified its answer “on the ground that Amazon owns all right, title, and interest in and to the Service offerings, including the account” (ECF No. 115 at 7 (citation omitted)), Defendant failed to include such an explanation in its answer to Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 3. Instead, Defendant included in its answer a denial of Plaintiff's ownership of the Amazon Account, a fact that Plaintiff did not inquire about and that has no bearing on why Defendant was required to admit that it does not own the Amazon Account. Thus, Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's ownership of the Amazon Account is not a proper qualification of its admission but an offering of a gratuitous and argumentative statement that fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 36.
 
Accordingly, Defendant shall amend its answer to Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 3 such that the answer responds fully to Plaintiff's request and complies with the limitations set forth by Rule 36. Defendant shall serve its amended answer on Plaintiff no later than October 28, 2016.
 
2. Requests for Admission No. 4 through 10
Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 4 asks Defendant to “[a]dmit that Amazon Web Services Account No. 675713428646 comprises, in whole or in part, an internet-based COMPUTER SYSTEM,” where “computer system” has the meaning set forth at California Penal Code § 502(b)(5). (ECF No. 114-3 at 3.) Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 5–9 ask Defendant to admit whether, after June 26, 2015, Defendant's employees knowingly accessed (Request for Admission No. 5), used (Request for Admission No. 6), altered (Request for Admission No. 7), made use of (Request for Admission No. 8), or caused to be used (Request for Admission No. 9)[2] the COMPUTER SYSTEM and data in the Amazon Account. (Id. at 4–6.) Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 10 asks Defendant to admit that Defendant's employees “knowingly withheld from UCSD personnel administrative access to portions of the COMPUTER SYSTEM contained in” the Amazon Account. (Id. at 6.) In response to each of Plaintiff's requests, Defendant answered that it “can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time.” (Id. at 3–7.)
 
*5 Plaintiff, in its Motion to Compel, contends that Defendant's responses are improper. (ECF No. 114-1 at 6–8.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that a response that claims “lack of knowledge or information” is permissible “only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny,” and Defendant “did not, and could not in good faith, make such an assertion.” (ECF No. 114-1 at 6.) In support of this contention, Plaintiff asserts that there is evidence indicating that Defendant's employees developed the EDC and were uniquely knowledgeable about its design and operation and the migration of data from the EDC to the Amazon Account, and this evidence contradicts Defendant's position that it can neither admit nor deny Plaintiff's request. (Id. at 6–7.)
 
In its Opposition, Defendant argues that it cannot admit or deny Plaintiff's requests at this time because “whether or not the AWS account qualifies as a ‘Computer System’ under the statutory definition is subject to fact discovery from third-party Amazon as well as expert discovery related to the form, structure, and engineering of the Amazon Account.” (ECF No. 115 at 8–9.) Defendant argues further that even if Defendant's employees have knowledge regarding the functional requirements of the Amazon Account, there are no USC employees who possess sufficient knowledge regarding the structure of the Amazon Account, which information is needed to respond to Plaintiff's request. (Id.)
 
Plaintiff, in its Reply, reiterates that a response claiming a lack of knowledge is permissible only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny, and that the evidence available to the parties prohibits Defendant from making such an assertion. (See ECF No. 118 at 4–6.)
 
Defendant has refused to admit or deny Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions 4 through 10 on the sole basis that it lacks adequate information about the “form, structure and engineering” of Amazon Web Services system to know if it meets the definition of a “Computer System” as defined by California Penal Code § 502(b)(5). In relevant part, that definition is states:
(5) “Computer system” means a device or collection of devices, including support devices ..., one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic instructions, input data, and output data, that performs functions, including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval, communication, and control.
California Penal Code § 502(b)(5). This is a straight-forward definition of a computer system. It is not particularly technical. The Court is wholly unpersuaded, especially in light of the identities and experience of the particular Defendants in this case, that Defendant USC is not in a position to know if the Amazon Account is or is not a computer system. Its position is a little like that of a cab driver claiming he cannot admit that the vehicle he drives is a car without getting additional information from the factory that produced it. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as to Requests for Admission 4 through 10 is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve its supplemental answer on Plaintiff on or before October 28, 2016.
 
C. Interrogatories
1. Interrogatory No. 1
Interrogatory No. 1 seeks information identifying all “ADCS Data and Systems” that Defendants have had in their possession, custody, or control since the Preliminary Injunction was granted. (ECF No. 114-3 at 7.) Defendant responded that because the ADCS Data and Systems “exist in cloud and third party storage, UCSD servers, and the San Diego Supercomputer Center[,] Defendants do not believe that their access to the ADCS Data and Systems on the Amazon cloud constitutes possession, custody, or control over the data and systems.” (Id. at 8.) In addition, Defendant responded that it “had access to most[3] of the Google documents and macros that help constitute Tier 3 of the EDC, access to the ‘iadcs.org’ website, access to the Google based website that contained EDC documentation ..., access to various repositories within the ADCS Bitbucket account, and access to the ADCS GitHub.” (Id.)
 
*6 Plaintiff seeks to compel a supplemental answer to this interrogatory on the basis that Defendant's response fails to provide the information sought. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends the response contains argumentative language regarding Plaintiff's own access to the ADCS Data and Systems. (ECF No. 114-1 at 9.)
 
In its Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 1 is not properly before the Court. Defendant supplemented its response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1 prior to Plaintiff's filing the present Motion to Compel, and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel takes issue with Defendant's original response and not its supplemental response. (ECF No. 115 at 10–11.) In addition, Defendant argues that its supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1 is sufficient, as it provides the specific information Plaintiff requested during the parties' meet and confer and clarifies that the ADCS Data and Systems are not in Defendant's “possession, custody, or control.” (Id. at 11; ECF No. 115-2 at 26.)
 
Plaintiff, in its Reply, argues that Defendant “cites no authority in support of its objection to the terms ‘possession, custody, and control’ ” and that any failure to raise this specific interrogatory in the parties' call to the Court that preceded the filing of this motion was inadvertent. (ECF No. 118 at 6 & n.2.) Plaintiff urges that the Court “should order Defendants to provide an inventory of the ADCS Data and Systems that are the subject of the preliminary injunction, and which USC is now using to operate the ATRI.” (Id.)
 
Having reviewed Defendant's answer (ECF No. 114-3 at 7–9) and supplemental answer (ECF No. 115 at 25–28) to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1, the Court finds Defendant's answer and supplemental answer are substantially similar. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 1 is fully briefed and properly before the Court.
 
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 1 is GRANTED in part. To the extent Defendant identifies which ADCS Data and Systems it has or has had in its possession, custody, or control since August 4, 2015—“all of the Google documents and macros that help constitute Tier 3 of the EDC” and “various repositories within the ADCS Bitbucket account”—Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a supplemental answer that identifies, with specificity, which ADCS Data and Systems Defendant has or has had in its possession, custody, and control as of August 4, 2015.
 
Furthermore, the Court notes that, contrary to the position being taken by Defendant, for purposes of discovery, “[t]he term ‘control’ is broadly construed, and it includes documents that the responding party has the legal right to obtain from third parties.” Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 603 (S.D. Cal. 2012). In light of Defendant's assertion in its supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 2, that the ADCS Sponsors “for five of the six major ADCS studies assigned all of their rights to the ADCS Data and System to the Defendant” (ECF No. 115-2 at 31), the Court rejects Defendant's position that it is not in “possession, custody, or control” of any “ADCS Data and Systems” simply because that information “exist[s] in cloud and third party storage.”
 
*7 Defendant shall serve its verified, supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 1 on Plaintiff no later than October 28, 2016.
 
2. Interrogatory No. 2
Interrogatory No. 2 asks Defendant to describe the efforts it has made to restore possession, custody, and control of the ADCS Data and Systems to Plaintiff on or after August 4, 2015. (ECF No. 114-3 at 9.) Plaintiff seeks to compel a further response to this interrogatory on the basis that Defendant's response “is evasive, consisting of a procedural history of the appointment of the Special Master and legal argument about the limitations on the Master's authority.” (ECF No. 114-1 at 10.)
 
In its Opposition, Defendant argues that its response is proper, as it explains that defendant “has worked in good faith with the court-appointed Special Master and Plaintiff, describes the process and the various issues that have arisen in the enforcement of the preliminary injunction, details USC's aid in providing Plaintiff with complete administrative control of the TCAD study, USC's transfer of Legacy Study Virtual Machines to Plaintiff, USC's proposed ‘ring-fence’ solution, and otherwise identifies the precise records that detail the hundreds of hours spent by USC over the past year to work through the Special Master process.” (ECF No. 115 at 11–12.) Defendant further argues that Plaintiff already has this information, as Plaintiff has had a representative present on every call and e-mail communication regarding the Special Master process. (Id. at 12 & n.3.)
 
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 2 is GRANTED in part. While Defendant's answer does consist largely “of a procedural history of the appointment of the Special Master and legal argument about the limitations on the Master's authority,” Plaintiff overlooks the fact that Defendant's answer also contains some explanation of the steps Defendant has taken to comply with the Preliminary Injunction. Defendant shall file a supplemental response affirming that Defendant has made no other efforts “on or after August 4, 2015, to restore possession, custody, and control of the ADCS Data and Systems to the Regents of the University of California” other than those specifically set forth in its prior response to Interrogatory 2, or, conversely, setting forth all additional efforts.
 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified, supplemental answer to the question asked in Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 2. Defendant shall serve its supplemental response on Plaintiff no later than October 28, 2016.
 
3. Interrogatory No. 3
Interrogatory No. 3 asks Defendant, “If YOU contend that YOU and/or any INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT had any legal right to use or exercise control over Amazon Web Services Account No. 6751328646 and/or any of its contents as of August 4, 2015, state the basis for your contention.” (ECF No. 114-3 at 12.) Defendant responded, in essence, that Plaintiff has no claim for ownership over the Amazon Account or its contents, that Defendant Aisen and his team had a legal obligation to continue to manage the studies for which he was Principal Investigator, and that Defendant Aisen and his team accessed the Amazon Account with the implied consent of Plaintiff. (Id. at 12–13.)
 
*8 Plaintiff seeks to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory on the basis that Defendant's response is evasive. (ECF No. 114-1 at 10.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant's response does not purport to identify a legal right held by any Defendant to use or exercise control over the Amazon Account. (Id.)
 
Defendant, in its Opposition, argues that its response is sufficient because Plaintiff had no right to exclude or prohibit Defendants' use and access to the data, Defendant Aisen was required and permitted to access the data by virtue of his position as Principal Investigator pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 312.60, and the Study Sponsors had specifically assigned their rights to this data to Defendants under the terms of the preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 115 at 12.)
 
Plaintiff, in its Reply, asserts that USC and its counsel “are sophisticated enough to know the difference between a ‘right’ and an ‘obligation,’ ” and a response describing supposed regulatory obligations is evasive. (ECF No. 118 at 6.)
 
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 3 is GRANTED in part. Defendant shall file a supplemental response affirming that there are no bases for Defendant's contention that “[Defendant USC] and/or any [other Defendant] had any legal right to use or exercise control over Amazon Web Services Account No. 6751328646 and/or any of its contents as of August 4, 2015” other than those specifically set forth in its prior response to Interrogatory 3, or, conversely, setting forth any additional bases.
 
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified, supplemental answer to the question asked in Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 3. Defendant shall serve its supplemental response on Plaintiff no later than October 28, 2016.
 
4. Interrogatory No. 15
Interrogatory No. 15 asks Defendant to provide “a complete and candid explanation of the factual and legal basis” for any response to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission that was not an unqualified admission. (ECF No. 114-3 at 13.) Without pointing to any specific deficiencies in Defendant's current response to Interrogatory No. 15, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel requests that the Court “order Defendants to provide a full and complete response to this interrogatory subject to the Court's ruling with respect to the above-referenced RFAs (Nos. 3–10).” (ECF No. 114-1 at 11.)
 
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 15 is GRANTED in part. Defendant is required to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 15 only to the extent that the factual and legal basis for any amended answer to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 3–10 that is not an unqualified admission was not already explained in Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 15.
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes
Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to discovery it propounded to Defendant USC. However, the opposition to the instant motion is captioned as being submitted on behalf of all Defendants. In this Order, the Court refers to the responding Defendant in the singular.
Although Plaintiff does not draw this distinction in its Motion to Compel, the Court notes that Plaintiff's Request for Admission No. 9 asks Defendant to admit that its employees knowingly caused to be used without permission from UCSD the “computer services,” and not the “computer system,” associated with the Amazon Account. (ECF No. 114-3 at 6.) However, as both “computer services” and “computer system” have equally clear, non-technical definitions in California Penal Code § 502(b), the Court finds the distinction between the two terms to be non-determinative for purposes of analyzing Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
The word “most” was changed to “all” in Defendant's supplemental response. (ECF No. 115-2 at 26.)