*1 On June 29, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation regarding Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 and a joint stipulation regarding Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-57 (excluding Nos. 10, 18, 30, 31, 34, and 35). (Dkt. Nos. 63, 65). The motions were accompanied by the Declaration of Mandana Massoumi with exhibits A-H. On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed his oppositions to Defendant's motions. (Dkt. Nos. 77-78).

A telephonic hearing was held on August 2, 2022. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and carefully considered the arguments made at the hearing. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's motions to compel.

A. Background

The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for unpaid wages, failure to pay wages upon termination, and unjust enrichment against Defendant. (Dkt. No. 24). Plaintiff alleges that he entered into an independent contractor agreement (“ICA”) with Saykara, Inc. (“Saykara”) to perform services related to selling the scribe artificial technology of Saykara. (Id.). He contends that he is entitled to sales commission for leads/opportunities he generated both while working for Saykara and for Defendant. (Id.). He alleges Defendants acquired the assets and liabilities of Saykara in February 2021, including the obligation to pay Plaintiff commissions for his continued services. (Id.). He further claims that he was misclassified as an independent contractor and should have been classified as an employee. (Id.).

B. Legal Standard

A party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Nevertheless, information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. Thus, relevance, for purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, and “[d]iscovery of nonprivileged information not admissible in evidence remains available so long as it is otherwise within the scope of discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee's note (2015); see Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). However, under amended Rule 26(b), discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This proportionality requirement “is designed to avoid ... sweeping discovery that is untethered to the claims and defenses in litigation.” Mfg. Automation & Software Sys., Inc. v. Hughes, 2017 WL 5641120, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017).

Motions to compel are governed by Rule 37, which allows a party to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer [or]... production ... if ... a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33[,] or a party fails to produce documents ... as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). Rule 33 provides that a party may serve on any other party a written interrogatory that is otherwise within the scope of Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1)(B). Rule 34 provides that a party may serve on any other party a request to produce documents or electronically stored information within the party's possession, custody, or control that is otherwise within the scope of Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). “Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance.” United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014). Further, district courts have “broad discretion” to control discovery and in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and alteration omitted).

C. Special Interrogatories, Set One

*2 Interrogatory No. 1 seeks all facts supporting Plaintiff's allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint that Plaintiff continued to work for Nuance under the same terms and conditions of the ICA. (Dkt. No. 65 at 10). Plaintiff responded by describing the work and specific tasks he performed for Defendant, but he did not provide any information that the work he performed was subject to the same terms and conditions of the ICA. (Id. at 10-11). Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 1 to address whether the work he performed for Defendant was under the same terms and conditions of the ICA.

Interrogatory No. 3 seeks all facts supporting Plaintiff's allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint that he was not free from the control and direction of Defendant in connection with the performance of his work. (Dkt. No. 65 at 13). Plaintiff responded that he took direction from Defendant's employees, but he did not specifically state that he was not free from the control and direction of Defendant in performing his duties. (Id.). Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 3 to indicate what facts exist to support his claim that he was not free from Defendant's control and direction when performing his work.

Interrogatory No. 7 seeks all facts supporting Plaintiff's allegation that the term of the ICA was extended after it expired on September 24, 2022. (Dkt. No. 65 at 14). Plaintiff responded that the Interrogatory misstates the allegations of the Complaint because the Complaint does not allege that the “term” of the ICA was extended after it expired. (Id.). The Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that the Interrogatory is ambiguous. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 7 and directs the parties to meet and confer so that Defendant may clarify any ambiguity in the request and amend it if needed.

Interrogatory No. 8 seeks all facts supporting Plaintiff's allegation that the terms of the ICA were assumed by Defendant. (Dkt. No. 65 at 16). Plaintiff responded that he performed the same work for Defendant that he performed for Saykara under the same terms and conditions of the ICA, and that the ICA was never modified by Saykara or Defendant. (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently answered this Interrogatory and denies Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 8.

Interrogatory No. 11 seeks all facts supporting Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 41 of the Complaint that he is owed commissions as set forth in the ICA for all sales by Saykara to Washington Rural Health Collaborative (“WRHC”) affiliate physicians. (Dkt. No. 65 at 17). Plaintiff responded by describing the work Plaintiff did to bring WRHC to Saykara as a lead/opportunity, convert it into a strategic partner, and negotiate the master services agreement between Saykara and WRHC, which became the template for contracts between Saykara and WRCH-affiliated providers. (Id.). Plaintiff further described how Saykara sold its artificial intelligence scribe solution to WRHC-affiliated medical groups and providers for which Plaintiff has not been paid. (Id.). The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently answered this Interrogatory and denies Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 11.

Interrogatory No. 13 asks Plaintiff to identify the total amount of money, payments, or commissions (and method of calculation) that Plaintiff claims are owed from Defendant. (Dkt. No. 65 at 19). Plaintiff responded that he could not determine this amount because he did not have the sales records of Saykara's artificial intelligence scribe solution and DAX to Stratum-affiliated medical groups and providers and WRHC-affiliated medical groups and providers. (Id.). Plaintiff admits he has since received discovery responses from Defendant with some sales data. (Id. at 20). Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 13 with the amount of money, payments, or commissions he claims Defendant owes to him based on the sales data he does have and explain how he arrived at that number.

*3 Interrogatory No. 14 asks Plaintiff to identify all sources of income he has had for the period of March 2019 to the present. (Dkt. No. 65 at 21). Plaintiff responded that he did not earn any income as an employee or independent contractor from March 24, 2020, the date the ICA commenced, through May 10, 2021, the date that Defendant terminated Plaintiff. (Id.). The Court finds that evidence of Plaintiff's income is relevant to the question of whether he was properly classified as an independent contractor. See Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC, 2020 WL 4390367, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020); Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., 2013 WL 6057043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013). Disclosure of this information does not violate Plaintiff's right to privacy. See Alvarez, 2020 WL 4390367, at *3. Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 14 to include all sources of income he received from March 2019 through March 2020 and May 2021 to present. To the extent Plaintiff received income from investments during that time period, he need not identify the specific type of investment, but shall indicate that he received investment income and generically explain the type of investment income he received (e.g., real estate, stocks, etc.).

Interrogatory No. 17 asks Plaintiff to identify all business licenses or professional certificates that he has obtained since March 2018. (Dkt. No. 65 at 23). Plaintiff responded that he had not obtained a business license from March 2018 through May 1, 2021. (Id.). In Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, he explained that he testified during his deposition on June 23, 2022 that he had not obtained any certifications since graduating from college in 1969. (Dkt. No. 77 at 5). Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 17 to identify whether he has obtained any business licenses from May 2021 to present and whether he has obtained any professional certificates from March 2018 to present.

D. Requests for Production, Set One

Defendant's RFP Nos. 1 and 56 seek documents related to Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One and Defendant's Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Dkt. No. 63 at 9, 78). Plaintiff objected to both requests, asserting the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. (Id.). The Court directs Plaintiff to supplement his responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 56 and produce a privilege log that identifies any records that are being withheld on the grounds of privilege or work product, sets forth the parties to the communication, and describes the subject matter with sufficient detail to enable a challenge to the assertion.

Defendant's motion also seeks supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 2-9, 11-17, 19-29, 32, 33, 36-55, and 57 that identify which documents were produced in response to each request. (See Dkt. No. 63). Rule 34 provides that “[a] party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). During the hearing, Defendant indicated that Plaintiff produced approximately 3,000 pages of documents, and Plaintiff conceded that he had not organized them in any way. Accordingly, Plaintiff must supplement his responses to RFP Nos. 2-9, 11-17, 19-29, 32, 33, 36-55, and 57. In responding to these discovery requests, Plaintiff must clearly state whether he has any responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control and, to the extent that responsive documents have already been produced in discovery, Plaintiff must identify, by bates number, the document(s) that are responsive to each RFP.

D. Sanctions

Defendant's motions each seek monetary sanctions of $10,000 for the fees incurred in filing the motions to compel. (Dkt. No. 63 at 81, Dkt. No. 65 at 25). Plaintiff objects to the requests for sanctions because he claims there is a genuine dispute about each of the requests at issue and a legitimate difference of opinion as to the sufficiency of Plaintiff's responses. (Dkt. No. 63 at 82, Dkt. No. 65 at 25-26). The Court finds that sanctions are unwarranted. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

E. Conclusion

*4 Defendant's motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 13, 14, and 17 is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant's motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, and 11 is DENIED. Defendant's motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 1-57 (excluding Nos. 10, 18, 30, 31, 34, and 35) is GRANTED. Defendant's motions for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiff's supplemental responses to interrogatories and RFPs, and privilege log, must be produced no later than August 23, 2022.

Given that the current discovery cut-off date is October 5, 2022, the parties shall utilize the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to bring any further discovery disputes to the Court's attention. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

IT IS SO ORDERED.