*1 On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant 12909 Cordary, LLC filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and Cross-Complainants Hussein M. Berri and Excaliber Fuels (“Defendants”), noticed for hearing on September 21, 2023. Dkt. 42 (“Motion”). Plaintiff asserts Defendants did not timely respond to Defendant's efforts to meet and confer regarding the allegedly deficient responses, which, Plaintiff claims, entitles it to proceed without a Local Rule (“L.R.”) 37-2 Joint Stipulation under L.R. 37-2.4(a). See Motion at 2; Dkt. 42-1 at 5 (CM/ECF pagination). After the Court issued an order continuing the hearing and setting a briefing schedule (Dkt. 43), on September 7, 2023, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 44 (“Opposition” or “Opp.”). On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Dkt. 45.

The parties agree, or do not dispute, that: (1) on June 2, 2023, Plaintiff served upon each of the Defendants (a) a First Set of Interrogatories totaling 25 interrogatories, a First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), totaling 53 requests, and a First Set of Requests for Admission (“RFA”), totaling 35 requests; (2) on June 5, 2023, Plaintiff served upon Defendants an Amended First Set of Interrogatories to correct a formatting error on the first page (collectively, the “Discovery Requests”); (3) Defendants sought, and Plaintiff granted, three extensions for Defendants to provide responses to the Discovery Requests, with the final extension providing Defendants until August 16, 2023, to provide responses; (4) on August 16, 2023, Defendants sought a fourth extension, which Plaintiff declined to provide; (5) on August 16, 2023, Defendants served responses to the Discovery Requests that constituted solely objections, without any substantive responses or agreements to produce documents; (6) on August 17, 2023, Plaintiff served an L.R. 37-1 meet and confer letter by email referencing the deficient responses and requesting a conference to discuss the issues; (7) Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's meet and confer letter within 10 days, with Defendants asserting they were not aware of the letter because it went to Defendants' counsel's “email junk folder”; (8) after the filing of the Motion, Defendants asked Plaintiff to withdraw the Motion to allow Defendants to provide substantive responses, to which Plaintiff responded that it would make a decision after Defendants provided such substantive responses; and (9) as of the date of Plaintiff's Reply, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants still have not provided any substantive responses. See generally, Motion at 2-12; Opp. at 2-3; Reply at 2-4.

The Court finds the Motion may be appropriately decided without further briefing or oral argument and vacates the hearing. The Court rules as follows.

A. Relevance for Discovery Purposes

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and 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. (“Rule”) 26(b)(1). Relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) is defined broadly. See Snipes v. United States, 334 F.R.D. 548, 550 (N.D. Cal. 2020); V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019), aff'd sub nom. V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, LTD., 2020 WL 1042515 (D. Nev. Mar. 3, 2020) (noting that relevance for discovery purposes remains broad even after the 2015 amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Moreover, “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Rule 26(b)(1). “Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 378 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citations omitted).

*2 Although relevance for discovery purposes is defined very broadly, it is not without boundaries. See Rule 26(b)(2); see, e.g., Rivera v. NIBCO, 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Mfg. Automation & Software Sys., Inc. v. Hughes, 2017 WL 5641120, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017) (citing Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005)).

B. Rule 33 Interrogatories

Pursuant to Rule 33, “[a]n interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Rule 33(a)(2). The party responding to an interrogatory must respond to each interrogatory by answering it separately and fully in writing under oath to the extent it is not objected to within 30 days of service, absent a stipulation of the parties or a court order providing for a different amount of time. Rule 33(b)(2), (3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Rule 33(b)(4). It is “the duty of the responding party to provide full answers to the extent not objectionable. If, for example, an interrogatory seeking information about numerous facilities or products is deemed objectionable, but an interrogatory seeking information about a lesser number of facilities or products would not have been objectionable, the interrogatory should be answered with respect to the latter even though an objection is raised as to the balance of the facilities or products. Similarly, the fact that additional time may be needed to respond to some questions (or to some aspects of questions) should not justify a delay in responding to those questions (or other aspects of questions) that can be answered within the prescribed time.” Rule 33, advisory committee notes to 1993 amendment. A propounding party may move for an order compelling an answer to an interrogatory if “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33.” Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).

C. Rule 34 Requests for Production

A party may serve on any other party requests, within the scope of Rule 26(b), to produce or permit inspection of, among other things, “any designated documents or electronically stored information” in “the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1)(A). Such requests “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected ... [and] must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection ....” Rule 34(b)(1)(A), (B). The party responding to a request for production must, within 30 days of service of the requests, absent a stipulation of the parties or a court order providing for a different amount of time, “[f]or each item or category, ... either state that inspection ... will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Rule 34(b)(2)(B). “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Rule 34(b)(2)(C). A propounding party may move for an order compelling an answer or production to a request for production if the responding party fails to produce documents or fails to respond as requested under Rule 34. Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response is treated as a failure to answer or respond. Rule 37(a)(4).

D. Rule 36 Requests for Admission

*3 Under Rule 36 a “party may 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.” Rule 36(a)(1). “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.” Rule 36(a)(3). “If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Rule 36(a)(4). A denial “must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Id. If an answering party asserts lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny, the party must state “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 a party objects to a request for admission, it must state its grounds for the objection and “must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 36(a)(5).

E. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

“Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance.” United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Once the minimal showing of relevance is made, “[t]he 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); see also Hsingching Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 2018 WL 4951918, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2018) (“The party opposing discovery is ‘required to carry a heavy burden of showing’ why discovery should be denied.” (quoting Reece v. Basi, 2014 WL 2565986, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2014))); Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998). “[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)).

Objections asserted in discovery responses but not raised in briefing on a discovery motion be deemed waived. MarketLinx, Inc. v. Indus. Access Inc., 2013 WL 12133884, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2013) (noting “objections that were raised in response to a particular discovery request, but were not argued in the [j]oint [stipulation, are deemed waived”) (citing Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 655, 662 (D. Kan. 1999) (“When ruling upon a motion to compel, the court generally considers those objections which have been timely asserted and relied upon in response to the motion. It generally deems objections initially raised but not relied upon in response to the motion as abandoned.”)).

F. Payment of Expenses Under Rule 37(a)(5)

If a motion to compel discovery responses is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees” unless: (i) the movant filed the motion before making a good faith attempt to resolve the issue without court action; (ii) the opposing party acted with substantial justification; or (in) other circumstances make such an award unjust. Rule 37(a)(5)(A).

Here, Plaintiff's counsel has made a sufficient showing that Defendants' counsel did not confer in a timely manner under Local Rule 37-1, justifying Plaintiff in proceeding under Local Rules 6 and 7, rather than Local Rule 37. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2.4(a). Even were Plaintiff's counsel to have made a technical failure to comply with Local Rule 37, the Court excuses any such failure in the interests of justice here, as Defendants have suffered no prejudice as they have had more time to oppose the Motion here than they would have had to provide their responsive portion of a joint submission under Local Rule 37-2.2.

*4 Next, Plaintiff has shown it served proper discovery seeking information that falls within the broad definition of relevance. Having so found, the burden shifts to Defendants to justify their objections. Defendants have not done so here. In fact, Defendants have offered no specific supporting evidence in support of any objections. Further, despite the requirements of Rules 33, 34, and 36, as described above, that require responding parties to answer discovery requests to the extent not objectionable, by not providing a single substantive response to any of the 226 combined individual requests, it is apparent that Defendants' “objections” were not true objections but were “boilerplate” assertions that were designed to buy more time after Defendants had already received three extensions, a design that has succeeded as, according to Plaintiff, more than 100 days after the Discovery Requests were propounded, Plaintiff had still not received a single substantive answer or responsive document. Reply at 2.

Even assuming that Defendants believed that certain RFPs sought documents from a large time frame or that were equally available to the parties, such limited objections would not preclude Defendants from answer the RFAs and Interrogatories and would not preclude Defendants from searching for and producing nonduplicative documents from a narrower time period. Nor has Defendant shown why the time frames sought in the Discovery Requests are unreasonable as the Complaint alleges matters “from the 1960s to the present.” Dkt. 1, ¶ 15. Further, “[a]n objection that documents are equally available to the requesting party is inappropriate.” Miller v. White, 2020 WL 4001624, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2020). To the extent Defendants object to the Discovery Requests as being “vague and ambiguous” without specifying what words or phrases are vague or ambiguous, the objections are overruled because parties responding to discovery should use common sense and attribute ordinary definitions to terms in discovery requests. Advanced Visual Image Design, LLC v. Exist, Inc., 2015 WL 4934178, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) (citing Brvant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 606 (S.D. Cal. 2012)); see also Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes. Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 618-19 (D. Colo. 2007); (finding parties have an “obligation to construe ... discovery requests in a reasonable manner”); King-Hardy v. Bloomfield Bd. of Educ., 2002 WL 32506294, at *5 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2002) (finding the responding party must give discovery requests a reasonable construction, rather than strain to find ambiguity); McCoo v. Denny's Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675, 694 (D. Kan. 2000) (“A party responding to discovery requests should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized ....” (internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent Defendants contend any of the Discovery Requests are “burdensome and harassing,” they have not offered any specific evidence to support such a claim, or a claim that the requests are not proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26(b). All other objections are similarly conclusory and/or unsupported by any specific evidence or argument.

In short, after three extensions, Defendants were not justified in serving boilerplate objections to each of the 226 Discovery Requests. Defendants had an obligation to support their objections with specific evidence and/or argument. They have not done so here. The objections, with the exception of objections based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, are overruled, and Defendants are ordered to provide fully compliant responses to the Interrogatories and the RFAs at issue and produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to the RFPs within their possession, custody, or control, within 14 days from the date of this Order.

As to Plaintiff's request for reasonable attorney's fees incurred in making the Motion, the Court finds Defendants had an opportunity to be heard via their Opposition both as to the request and as to the reasonableness of fees sought. Defendants do not appear to contest the reasonableness of the rates or time spent by counsel. Rather, Defendants, relying exclusively upon inapplicable California state law, argue an award of fees is not warranted here. Opp. at 4-5. The Court finds: (i) Plaintiff made a good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues raised in the Motion; (ii) Defendants did not act with substantial justification; and (iii) no circumstances would make an award unjust here.

*5 As to the amount of the requested fees (Dkt. 42-2, at 4, ¶ 17), the Court, having reviewed the moving and reply papers and being familiar with the rates charged by attorneys in this region for similar work, finds that 7.2 hours spent drafting the moving and reply papers, at an hourly rate of $675 per hour, resulting in $4,860.00 in fees, reflect both a reasonable rate and a reasonable amount of time spent on the tasks. Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement of a filing fee of “$402.00.” Id. The only $402.00 filing that could possibly be referred to is the fee for filing the initial Complaint in September 2022, and Plaintiff cannot allege that such filing fee was incurred “in making the motion” under Rule 37(a)(5). As such, the request for that amount is denied. As a result, the Court finds an award fees incurred of $4,860.00 (7.2 hours at $675 per hour) is reasonable and was actually incurred in preparing the Motion and Reply, and orders that amount to be paid by Defendants to Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days from the date of this Order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Dkt. 42) is GRANTED as follows. Defendants are ORDERED to personally serve complete responses to the Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission at issue in the Motion that comply with Rules 33, 34, and 36 without objection, and produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to the Requests for Production, all within 14 days from the date of this Order. Further, Defendants are ordered to pay to Plaintiff $4,860.00, representing reasonable attorney's fees incurred in making the Motion under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), within 14 days from the date of this Order, payable as directed by Plaintiff's counsel.

Defendants are advised that failure to comply with this Order could result in further sanctions, up to and including “directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,” “prohibiting [Defendants] from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters into evidence,” “striking pleadings in whole or in part,” “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part,” “rendering a default judgment against [Defendants],” and/or “treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.” Rule 37(b)(2)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.