*1 The Magistrate Judge has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to Defendant's motion “Regarding Plaintiff's Discovery Responses and a Request for an Order Compelling Supplemental Responses” (“the Motion”), filed June 13, 2023. The Magistrate Judge has taken the Motion under submission without oral argument. See Minute Orders, filed June 2, 2023.

Plaintiff argues that the Motion should be denied as untimely. Defendant did not seek court intervention into this discovery dispute until less than sufficient time remained before the discovery cut-off to adhere to the schedule contemplated by Local Rule 37. Under the circumstances presented, however, the Magistrate Judge declines to deny the Motion as untimely. Delays by both parties contributed to the compression of discovery toward the end of the designated time period. Noncompliance with Local Rule 37 can be harmless. See, e.g., Darling v. Del Mese, 2014 WL 12967991, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2014). Noncompliance was harmless here.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff waived all potential objections to Defendants' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents because Plaintiff served the responses to these requests two days late. The Magistrate Judge declines to deem Plaintiff's objections waived, particularly in view of the short length of the delay and the absence of any showing of prejudice to Defendant. See Shacar v. TransUnion LLC, 2021 WL 6496405, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021); Karr v. Napolitano, 2012 WL 1965855, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012); see also WideVoice Communications, Inc. v. Qwest Communications Co., LLC, 2012 WL 1439071, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 2012).

Plaintiff argues that any discovery pertaining to Defendant's “fraudulent inducement” theory is outside the proper scope of discovery relevance because Defendant failed expressly to plead an affirmative defense denominated “fraudulent inducement.” The Magistrate Judge deems this argument unpersuasive, given the breadth of discovery relevance under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the nature of the inducement-related allegations contained in Defendant's pleadings. See. e.g., “Defendant Scott Bohannon's Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim, etc.” filed May 26, 2022, pp. 6, 12-13.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's “fraudulent inducement” theory lacks plausibility, citing, inter alia, an email in which Defendant apparently claimed to have been “very skeptical” of the representation(s) on which Defendant now claims to have relied. This argument is also unpersuasive. A challenge to the legal or factual viability of an opposing party's theory ordinarily does not affect the proper scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b); see also Williams v. Hargrove, 2017 WL 11454716, at *1 (S.D. Miss. April 12, 2017); Celanese Corp. v. Clariant Corp., 2016 WL 1074573, at *4-5 (N.D. Tex. March 18, 2016); Third Pentacle, LLC v. Interactive Life Forms, LLC, 2012 WL 27473, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2012); see generally 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2008, p. 137 (3d ed. 2010) (“Discovery is not to be denied because it relates to a claim or defense that is being challenged as insufficient”).

*2 Defendant argues that Plaintiff waived any issue regarding the proportionality of the subject discovery requests by failing expressly to object on this basis in Plaintiff's responses to the requests. The Magistrate Judge deems this argument unpersuasive, given the nature of the proportionality considerations specified in Rule 26(b)(1) and the objections on grounds of overbreadth and burdensomeness expressly made in Plaintiff's responses to the subject discovery requests. On the evidence presented, the Magistrate Judge has determined that most of the discovery sought by Defendant in the Motion is not proportional to the needs of this case, and the Magistrate Judge has ruled accordingly herein.

Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall: (1) produce additional documents responsive to Request for Production No. 32 obtained after a renewed, reasonable, good faith search for documents responsive to this request; (2) as to Request for Production No. 30, produce documents sufficient to show all reasons Plaintiff decided to use promissory notes in connection with the payment of bonuses to employees; (3) as to Request for Production No. 35, produce documents sufficient to show the roles and job titles of Byron Matthews and Christoffer Ellehuus from March 1, 2019 to December 1, 2019; (4) serve an answer without objection to Interrogatory No. 2 (limited to the policies applicable to determining the bonus payments from January 2019 to January 2022 for employees who reported directly to Mark Arians); (5) serve an answer to Interrogatory No. 10 (limited to an identification of up to ten (10) entities in the United States that Plaintiff deems to be “engaged in the business of leadership performance consulting and/or leadership performance training”; and (6) serve a privilege log identifying with particularity any documents withheld from production under claim of the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

The Magistrate Judge has found that the discovery ordered herein is relevant to the parties' claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As to Plaintiff's assertions of privacy, the Magistrate Judge has found that Defendant's need for the discovery ordered herein outweighs the interests of Plaintiff and others in maintaining the alleged confidentiality of this discovery, in light of the “Stipulated Protective Order,” filed October 17, 2022.

Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is also denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

cc: Judge Wilson