*1 On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff James Hightower (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Motion for a Protective Order to Quash Defendants Subpoenas and Compel Defendants to Respond to Request for Information (Set One)” (“Motion for Protective Order”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 48. On June 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and for Sanctions. Dkt. 56. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents (“Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 59.

For the reasons set forth below, (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff initiated the instant employment discrimination action by filing a Complaint against defendants Southern California, Permanente Medical Group dba Anaheim Medical Center and Does 1-10. Dkt. 1. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Does 1-10 setting forth sixteen causes of action. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff, “a Disabled Veteran and African American Male,” alleges he was discriminated against, harassed, and wrongfully terminated from his employment as a Registered Nurse after reporting “what he believed to be unsafe nursing practices and patient safety concerns in the COVID triage area.” Id.

On April 11, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals filed an Answer to the FAC.[1] Dkt. 18. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals asserted it was not Plaintiff's employer and is a separate and distinct entity from Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Id.

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff served defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals with Requests For Admission (Set One). Dkt. 64-1, Declaration of Monica Hernandez in support of Opposition to Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (“Hernandez RFA Decl.”), ¶ 4, Ex. A.

On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff served a “First Set of Requests for Information” on defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Dkt. 48 at 21-22, Declaration of James Hightower in support of Motion for Protective Order (“Plaintiff PO Decl.”), ¶ 7, Ex. C.

On May 23, 2022, defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group filed a currently pending Motion to Dismiss the FAC. Dkt. 36.

On May 25, 2022, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff to request a two-week extension to serve responses to the Requests for Admission because her client representative was unavailable to review and verify the responses by the June 1, 2022 deadline. Hernandez RFA Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B. Plaintiff responded to defense counsel's email the same day refusing to agree to the request for extension. Id., ¶ 6, Ex. C.

On June 1, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals served “objection-only” responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission. Hernandez RFA Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. E.

*2 On June 3, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiff with copies of subpoenas for Plaintiff's employment records (a) prior to his employment by Defendants from: Inland Valley Medical Center; Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital; Kindred Hospital Ontario; Loma Linda University Medical Center; and Riverside University Health System (“Prior Employment Subpoenas”); and (b) subsequent to his employment by Defendants from American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc.; Westway's Staffing Services, Inc.; and Yolocare, Inc. dba Premier Ambulance Company (“Subsequent Employment Subpoenas”, collectively the “Subpoenas”). Dkt. 60-1, Declaration of Monica Hernandez in support of Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (“Hernandez PO Decl.”), ¶ 4, Ex. A. The Subpoenas each seek documents pertaining to the job application and hiring process for Plaintiff, Plaintiff's personnel file, evaluations, disciplinary records, employment notes, medical/healthcare records (including workers' compensation and disability claims), attendance records, resumes, and payroll records. Id.

On June 5, 2022, Plaintiff emailed defense counsel demanding an explanation for “how each item requested below is NOT intended to (1) cause unwarranted annoyance[;] (2) embarrassment[;] (3) undue burden or expense; [and] (4) employ[ ] discovery method of legal expense disproportionate to the matters at issue.” Hernandez PO Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B. On June 6, 2022, defense counsel substantively responded by email to each of Plaintiff's concerns set forth in the June 5 email. Id., ¶ 6, Ex. C. The parties were thereafter unable to agree on a mutually convenient time to meet and confer on Plaintiff's proposed Motion for Protective Order. Id., ¶¶ 7-14.

On June 10, 2022, Defendants served their initial disclosures. Hernandez RFA Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. H.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Protective Order seeking an order (a) quashing the Subpoenas on the grounds they are overbroad and harassing; and (b) requiring a response from Defendants to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Information.[2] Dkt. 48. On June 23, 2022, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. 60. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. 61.

On June 17, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals served verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission and responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Information. Hernandez RFA Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. I; Dkt. 65-1, Declaration of Monica Hernandez in support of Opposition to Motion to Compel (“Hernandez MTC Decl.”), ¶ 4.

On June 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and for Sanctions. Dkt. 56. On June 30, 2022, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and for Sanctions. Dkt. 64. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Production of Documents seeking further responses to Requests for Information Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Dkt. 59. On June 30, 2022, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Dkt. 65. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

The matters thus stand submitted.

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

*3 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... production, or inspection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[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). “The party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections lack merit.” Bluestone Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. C-13-01770 SI (EDL), 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013).

A. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

1. Applicable Law

The scope of discovery allowed under a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26. Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 WL 6774072, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013); FED. R. CIV. P. 45 Advisory Comm.'s Note (1970) (“[T]he scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to ... other discovery rules.”). “[T]he requirement of Rule 26(b)(1) that the material sought in discovery be ‘relevant’ should be firmly applied, and the district courts should not neglect their power to restrict discovery where ‘justice requires [protection for] a party ... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ....” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) (brackets in original). “Discovery requests seeking irrelevant information are inherently undue and burdensome.” Wheel Grp. Holdings, LLC v. Cub Elecparts, Inc., No. CV 17-5956-JVS (PLAx), 2018 WL 6264980, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018).

“A person from or about whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order limiting or even forbidding discovery ‘for good cause’ to protect the moving party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Daniels v. G4S Secure Sols. USA, Inc., No. 8:20-CV-00283-JGB (JDEx), 2020 WL 6535783, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020), partially reversed on other grounds on reconsideration, 2020 WL 7861983 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)). Additionally, Rule 45 provides that a subpoena must be modified or quashed if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies,” or if the subpoena “subjects a person to undue burden.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), (iv).

A party seeking a protective order has a “heavy burden” of showing why discovery should be limited. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). “ ‘Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.’ ” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004 (citation omitted)). “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429); see also Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence”).

2. Analysis

*4 The Subpoenas seek the following categories of documents from each of Plaintiff's prior and subsequent employers:

Hernandez PO Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.

Plaintiff argues the Subpoenas are overbroad, solely intended to harass, and seek private information regarding his medical records. Dkt. 48.

Defendants argue these broad subpoenas seek information relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this employment action and are proportional to the needs of the case. Dkt. 60 at 17-18. Specifically, Defendants argue “[b]ecause Plaintiff has put his reputation, credentials and work history at issue,” the Subpoenas seek information “as to his qualifications for the position held” at defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Id. at 17. Defendants further argue “given Plaintiff's representations in his cover letter and resume, and his performance problems during his short tenure at [defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group], Defendants are entitled to discovery into whether Plaintiff misrepresented his credentials and/or work experience, as such discovery may assist them in asserting an after-acquired evidence defense.” Id. at 17-18. Lastly, Defendants argue “documents pertaining to Plaintiff's pay and work hours from his employers subsequent to [defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group] are directly relevant to Defendants' analysis of Plaintiff's efforts to mitigate his damages, and the calculation of compensatory damages and reputational harm.” Id. at 18.

*5 As an initial matter, Defendants' argument that “Ninth Circuit law generally favors a broad scope of discovery” is inaccurate and their citation to a pre-2015 case for this point is not well taken. Dkt. 60 at 16 (citing Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 54 F.3d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995). After the 2015 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[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) (citing In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)). Moreover, in the context of employment litigation, some courts have found “employment records from separate employers are not discoverable due to their highly private nature absent a specific showing by a defendant as to their relevance.” Bolding v. Banner Bank, No. C17-0601RSL, 2020 WL 3605593, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2020). In addition, “courts have recognized that notifying a current employer of the filing of a claim can be considered retaliatory because it would chill employees' willingness to pursue statutory claims and remedies for fear of adversely impacting future employment opportunities.” Id. (citing Rutherford v. Am. Bank of Commerce, 565 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1977) (affirming finding that former employer retaliated when it notified plaintiff's current employer that plaintiff had filed a discrimination charge)).

Here, Defendants only make a specific showing of relevance as to a few categories of documents, particularly as to the subpoenas directed to Plaintiff's current employers. At this initial stage of the proceedings, where the pleadings are not settled and before the Court has even issued a scheduling order, the Subpoenas directed to Plaintiff's current employers are particularly troubling. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to limit the Subpoenas as set forth below.

First, while a protective order could assuage concerns regarding the privacy of medical records, it is not clear to the Court how Plaintiff's medical records are relevant to the claims or defenses in this action and Defendants do not set forth any argument supporting the request for medical records. Accordingly, Category 4 seeking “[d]ocuments and/or materials relating to PLAINTIFF's health” shall be STRICKEN from the Subpoenas. Second, as to the Subsequent Employment Subpoenas, Defendants fail to explain the relevance of any of the requests beyond the request for Plaintiff's pay and work hours. Accordingly, all Categories except Category 6 seeking “[d]ocuments and/or materials relating to PLAINTIFF's compensation” shall be STRICKEN from the Subsequent Employment Subpoenas. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is GRATNED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

B. MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED

1. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for admission and provides, “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3).

2. Analysis

Plaintiff first requests that the Court deem the Requests for Admission admitted because defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' initial responses were solely objections. On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff served defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals with Requests For Admission (Set One). Hernandez RFA Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A. On June 1, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals served “objection-only” responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission because Plaintiff had denied defense counsel's request for a two-week extension. Id., ¶¶ 5, 6, 9, Ex. E. On June 17, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals served verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission. Id., ¶ 13, Ex. I. Accordingly, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' responses to the Requests for Admission were timely served within thirty days after being served and timely supplemented as soon as the client representative was available. See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3).

*6 Plaintiff also requests that the Court deem the Requests for Admission admitted based on Defendants' alleged “discovery abuse” and “fraud on the court” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Dkt. 56. Plaintiff alleges defense counsel made various misrepresentations to Plaintiff and the Court and retaliated against Plaintiff for not granting Defendants an extension of time to respond to discovery requests. Dkt. 56. Here, the allegations against defense counsel do not appear to go beyond zealous advocacy for her client at this time. However, Plaintiff and defense counsel are reminded and admonished: “that just as the court should construe and administer these rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, so the parties share the responsibility to employ the rules in the same way.... Effective advocacy is consistent with -- and indeed depends upon -- cooperative and proportional use of procedure.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1 advisory committee notes (2015 amendments). In addition, Plaintiff is reminded even though he is proceeding in this action pro se, he must strictly comply with all applicable Federal and Local Rules, including meeting and conferring in good faith before bringing any motion and the procedure set forth in Local Rule 37-1 and 37-2 for bringing discovery disputes before the Court.[3] Here, Plaintiff's failure to grant Defendants a brief extension to serve responses to the Requests for Admission and filing the Motion to Deem Facts Admitted one day after receiving Defendants' verified supplemental responses fails to satisfy the requirement of Local Rule 37-1 to meet and confer in good faith.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted is DENIED without prejudice.

C. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. “The party to whom the [Request for Production] is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). 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).

“[G]eneral 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) (citing Paulsen v. Case Corp., 168 F.R.D. 285, 289 (C.D. Cal. 1996)) (faulting defendant for making “boilerplate objections to almost every single request for production, including broad relevancy objections, objections of ‘overly burdensome and harassing,’ ‘assumes facts not in evidence,’ privacy, and attorney-client privilege/work product protection”).

2. Request for Information No. 3

*7 Request for Information No. 3 states: “Provide evidence that reflect, describe, or show a copy of any internal investigation conducted after Plaintiff's complaint or involved Plaintiff complaint made to Director Garcia on Wed 1/27/2021 3:26 PM. And [Kaiser Foundation Hospitals] corporate office via service agent on Jan 28, 2021, 12:53 PM. The investigation should include investigation notes, witness statements, and other evidence obtained during the investigation.” Hernandez MTC Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals objects on the grounds the request (a) is “vague, ambiguous, non-sensical, and calls for speculation”; (b) seeks irrelevant information and is disproportionate to the needs of the case; (c) seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine; and (d) seeks documents outside responding party's possession, custody, or control, because defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals was not Plaintiff's employer. Id. Subject to and without waiving those objections, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals responds: “After a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant [Kaiser Foundation Hospitals] has no non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.” Id.

Plaintiff appears to dispute whether defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals actually conducted a reasonable search. Dkt. 59 at 5-6. Plaintiff, however, fails to provide any basis for believing further documents exists and concedes he is not seeking attorney-client privileged documents. See id. at 5-6, 10. “A court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist.” Moran v. Pak, No. SACV 16-00705-CJC (DFMx), 2017 WL 11632943, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017) (quoting MGA Entm't, Inc. v. Nat'l Prod. Ltd., No. CV 10-07083 JAK (SSx), 2011 WL 4550287, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)) (“[M]ere suspicion that additional documents exist does not justify a motion to compel.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Request for Information No. 3 is DENIED.

3. Request for Information No. 5

Request for Information No. 5 states: “From January 2021 to present: Provide evidence that reflect, describe, or show the names, race and sex of the employees who have been mandated to attend a meeting for refusing to agree to provide care in an area of nursing he or she lacks the experience to safely carry out.” Hernandez MTC Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals objects on the grounds the request (a) is “vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation, and assumes facts not in evidence”; (b) seeks irrelevant information and is disproportionate to the needs of the case; and (c) seeks documents protected by the Constitutional rights to privacy of third parties. Id. Subject to and without waiving those objections, “and limiting its response to Defendant [Kaiser Foundation Hospitals]'s employees in the Emergency Room at Anaheim Medical Center,” defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals responds that “After a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant [Kaiser Foundation Hospitals] has no non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.” Id.

Plaintiff similarly appears to dispute whether defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals actually conducted a reasonable search. Dkt. 59 at 6. Plaintiff, however, fails to provide any basis for believing further documents exists. See id. at 6. “A court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist.” Moran, 2017 WL 11632943, at *2. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Request for Information No. 5 is DENIED.

4. Request for Information No. 8

*8 Request for Information No. 8 states: “Provide the evidence that reflect, describe, or show the name of the security guard who escorted Plaintiff out of Anaheim Medical Center at 3440 E La Palma Ave Anaheim Calif on January 23rd 2021.” Hernandez MTC Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals objects on the grounds the request (a) is “vague, ambiguous, and calls for speculation”; (b) is overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, and is disproportionate to the needs of the case; and (c) seeks documents protected by the Constitutional rights to privacy of third parties. Id.

Plaintiff argues he needs the name of the security guard in order to question him regarding “how often he is asked or required to standby (for safety precautions) when manager Ficke has meetings with other staff members to discuss patient care concerns.” Dkt. 59 at 6.

Defendants' objections on the grounds the request is vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation, is overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, and is disproportionate to the needs of the case are OVERRULED. While Plaintiff does not specifically address these objections in the motion, they are unsupported and boilerplate. A. Farber & Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 188. Defendants' reliance on Goolsby v. Carrasco, No. 1:09-CV-01650 JLT PC, 2011 WL 2636099, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011) to support their argument that discovery seeking the name of an employee is improper, is misplaced. In Goolsby, the court found “[t]here is no reasonable way Defendant can ascertain every person who has knowledge of the I.M.E. cage yard program.” Goolsby, 2011 WL 2636099, at *5. Whereas, here, Plaintiff seeks the name of a single security guard who was on duty at a specific time and tasked with a specific job. Accordingly, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' privacy objection is OVERRULED. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Request for Information No. 8 is GRANTED.

5. Requests for Information Nos. 9 and 10

Request for Information No. 9 states: “Provide evidence that reflect, describe, or show a copy of any evidence relied on that authorized Manager Ficke to mandate Plaintiff provide independent care of a neonate while still on orientation.” Hernandez MTC Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.

Request for Information No. 10 states: “Provide evidence that reflect, describe, or show a copy of any evidence relied on that authorized Manager Ficke to mandate Plaintiff attend a meeting to discuss concerns of disciplinary nature without allowing Plaintiff to have union representation at the meeting.” Id.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals objects on the grounds the requests (a) are “vague and ambiguous”; (b) lacks foundation; (c) call for speculation; and (d) seek documents that are not in defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' possession, custody, or control. Id. Subject to and without waiving those objections, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals responds that “After a reasonable search and inquiry, Defendant [Kaiser Foundation Hospitals] has no responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff and Ryan Ficke were employed by Defendant [Southern California Permanente Medical Group], not Defendant [Kaiser Foundation Hospitals]; thus discovery requests pertaining to Plaintiff's employment or Mr. Ficke's employment should be directed to [Southern California Permanente Medical Group].” Id.

*9 Plaintiff once again appears to dispute whether defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals actually conducted a reasonable search. Dkt. 59 at 7. Plaintiff, however, fails to provide any basis for believing further documents exists. See id. at 7. “A court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist.” Moran, 2017 WL 11632943, at *2. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Requests for Information Nos. 9 and 10 is DENIED.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted is DENIED without prejudice; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Both parties are cautioned that future failure to strictly comply with Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2 will result in sanctions. In addition, an award of attorney's fees is generally required when a discovery motion is granted or denied in its entirety. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5).

On July 12, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals filed an Amended Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 68.

The portion of the Motion for Protective Order seeking to compel responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Information appears to be duplicative of Plaintiff's later filed Motion to Compel further responses to his First Set of Requests for Information. Accordingly, this portion of the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED as MOOT.

While the Court notes that parties proceeding pro se, i.e., without an attorney, often face special challenges in federal court, the Court will not entertain any future discovery motions that do not strictly comply with all applicable rules. The Public Service Law Corporation runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic at the following federal courthouses where pro se litigants can get information and guidance: