*1 On October 27, 2022, defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPMG”) filed a Motion to Compel (“Motion”) seeking an Order to compel Plaintiff James Hightower (“Plaintiff”) to respond to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 127. For the reasons set forth below, defendant SCPMG's Motion is GRANTED.

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 SCPMG, 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. Dkt. 18. On May 23, 2022, defendant SCPMG filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. Dkt. 36. On July 12, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals filed an Amended Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 68.

On July 15, 2022, defendant SCPMG served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Dkt. 127-1, Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez (“Hernandez Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exs. A, B.

On July 20, 2022, the Court granted defendant SCPMG's Motion to Dismiss the FAC. Dkt. 73.

On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed “Revisions” to the FAC. Dkt. 75.

On August 19, 2022, defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals filed an Answer to the “Revisions” to the FAC. Dkt. 80. On August 19, 2022, defendant SCPMG filed a Motion to Dismiss the “Revisions” to the FAC. Dkt. 79. On September 6, 2022, the Court denied defendant SCPMG's Motion to Dismiss the “Revisions” to the FAC without prejudice. Dkt. 92. On September 30, 2022, defendant SCPMG filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the “Revisions” to the FAC, which is currently pending before the Court. Dkt. 108.

Plaintiff did not serve responses to the Requests for Production of Documents or Interrogatories. Hernandez Decl., ¶ 5. Hence, on August 30, 2022, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff offering an extension of time until September 6, 2022, if Plaintiff intended to serve responses to the Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Id., ¶ 10, Ex. G. On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff responded to defense counsel's email and appeared to indicate he had not received the discovery requests. Id., ¶ 11, Ex. H. Therefore, on August 30, 2022, defense counsel sent Plaintiff courtesy copies of the discovery requests via email and U.S. mail. Id., ¶¶ 12, 15. On September 1, 2022, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff informing him the discovery requests were served via email on July 15, 2022, courtesy copies were mailed to him on August 30, 2022, and defendant SCPMG “look[ed] forward to receiving [Plaintiff's] past-due discovery responses by September 6, 2022.” Id., ¶ 18, Ex. N. Also on September 1, 2022, defense counsel's assistant emailed Plaintiff courtesy copies of the discovery requests in .docx format. Id., ¶ 19.

*2 Plaintiff did not serve any responses to the written discovery. Id., ¶ 20. Hence, on September 7, 2022, defense counsel e-mailed Plaintiff advising him that their previously scheduled phone call on September 8, 2022 would include meeting and conferring regarding defendant SCPMG's anticipated motion to compel responses to the Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Id., ¶ 21, Ex. P.

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff e-mailed defense counsel confirming his availability to meet and confer later that day and advised that he is “not refusing to provide discovery. But [Plaintiff] will not address discovery matters already requested via subpoena and rejected by the court.” Id., ¶ 22, Ex. Q.

On September 8, 2022, the parties met and conferred via telephone, but were unable to resolve their dispute regarding whether Plaintiff was required to serve responses to the written discovery. Id., ¶ 23.

On October 18, 2022, defendant SCPMG served on Plaintiff via e-mail defendant SCPMG's portion of a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 in support of a motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to the Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Id., ¶ 24, Ex. R. On October 20, 2022, defense counsel also mailed Plaintiff a courtesy copy of defendant SCPMG's portion of the Joint Stipulation. Id., ¶ 24.

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff e-mailed defense counsel, stating, “I will not take part in any requests you have until the matters of fraud is addressed by the court.” Id., ¶ 29, Ex. W. Plaintiff did not provide his portion of the Joint Stipulation to defense counsel by October 25, 2022. Id., ¶ 30.

On October 27, 2022, defendant SCPMG filed the instant Motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to respond to the Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Dkt. 127. On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 129. On November 17, 2022, defendant SCPMG filed a Reply in support of the Motion. Dkt. 134.

The matter thus stands submitted.

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

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).

*3 As an initial matter, defendant SCPMG sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37-1 regarding Plaintiff's failure to respond to defendant SCPMG's Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. See Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 10-23. Hence, Plaintiff's claim that defendant SCPMG failed to adequately meet and confer is rejected.

A. THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IS GRANTED

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 responding party must respond in writing and is obligated to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(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). Alternatively, a party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B). Failure to object to requests for production of documents within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).

2. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff was served with Requests for Production of Documents on July 15, 2022. Hernandez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A. Plaintiff's response was due on August 15, 2022. See FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Plaintiff failed to respond by the August 15, 2022 deadline and did not request an extension of time. Nonetheless, defense counsel offered Plaintiff an extension of time until September 6, 2022. See Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 10, 18. Despite this, Plaintiff did not serve responses to the Requests for Production of Documents by September 6, 2022, id., ¶ 20, and as of the date of this Order, it appears Plaintiff has still failed to serve responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, see dkts. 129, 134.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived any objections to the Requests for Production. See Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1473. Hence, the Court grants the Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, and Plaintiff shall serve written responses to the Requests for Production and produce all responsive documents without objections within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

B. THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED

1. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories to parties. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33. “The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(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). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4).

2. Analysis

*4 Here, Plaintiff was served with Interrogatories on July 15, 2022. Hernandez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B. Plaintiff's response was due on August 15, 2022. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2). Plaintiff failed to respond by the August 15, 2022 deadline and did not request an extension of time. Nonetheless, defense counsel offered Plaintiff an extension of time until September 6, 2022. See Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 10, 18. Despite this, Plaintiff did not serve responses to the Interrogatories by September 6, 2022, id., ¶ 20, and as of the date of this Order, it appears Plaintiff has still failed to serve responses to the Interrogatories, see dkts. 129, 134.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived any objections to the Interrogatories. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4). Hence, the Court grants the Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, and Plaintiff shall serve written responses to the Interrogatories without objections within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

It is therefore ORDERED: