I. SUMMARY

*1 On November 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Leprino Foods Compay and Leprino Foods Health & Welfare Plan (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Leprino”) unilaterally filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Babak Moeinolmolki (“Motion to Compel”) which was noticed for hearing before this Court on December 26, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. (Docket Nos. 320, 331).[1]

Pursuant to Local Rules 7-9 and 37-2.4, Defendant Moeinolmolki's opposition to the Motion to Compel was due on December 5, 2023. Defendant Moeinolmolki (“Defendant”) did not timely (or otherwise) file an opposition to the Motion to Compel and has not otherwise communicated with the Court regarding the Motion to Compel.

On December 21, 2023, the Court submitted the Motion to Compel for decision and vacated the hearing thereon.

Based upon the Court's consideration of the submissions in connection with the Motion to Compel, the pertinent facts and law, and the record, the Court grants the Motion to Compel and orders Defendant to produce the items called for by this Order and to pay the sanctions imposed by this Order within fourteen (14) days.

II. PERTINENT DISCOVERY FACTS

On February 1, 2023 – before Defendant Moeinolmolki appeared in this action – the parties who had then appeared submitted, and the then-assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Stipulated Protective Order which governs this action. (Docket Nos. 102, 103).[2] On February 28, 2023 – after Defendant Moeinolmolki appeared in this action – Defendant's counsel signed and the parties submitted a Stipulated E-Discovery Specification, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), which the then-assigned Magistrate Judge issued on March 1, 2023 (“E-Discovery Order”). (Docket Nos. 123, 124).

In April 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel served Defendant with a Demand for Preservation. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 9).

On April 19, 2023, Leprino propounded Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production (“Document Requests” or “RFP”) on Defendant Moeinolmolki. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 3; Bowles Ex. A). Over four months later – on September 5, 2023 – Defendant Moeinolmolki served objections and responses to the Document Requests and produced documents formatted as four .pdf documents bearing Bates Nos. 1-649. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 3; Bowles Ex. B). Defendant Moeinolmolki did not produce a privilege log or a “destruction/unavailable log,” as called for by the Document Requests. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 3).

*2 On May 2, 2023, Leprino propounded Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”), on Defendant Moeinolmolki. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 4; Bowles Ex. C). On June 1, 2023, Defendant Moeinolmolki served objections and responses to the Interrogatories. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 4; Bowles Ex. D).

On October 20, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed Defendant's counsel a Local Rule 37-1 meet and confer letter. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 5; Bowles Ex. E). Defendant's counsel did not respond. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 5). On October 27, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a follow-up email to Defendant's counsel regarding his non-response and Plaintiffs' intent to file a motion the following week. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 6). Defendant's counsel assertedly claimed that he had never received the October 20, 2023 letter and represented that he would follow up in a few days, but never did so. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 6).[3]

The discovery cut-off in this action is currently March 13, 2024. (Docket No. 108).

As of the execution of the Bowles and Han Declarations on November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs incurred a total of $10,768.50 in fees in connection with the Motion to Compel. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 8; Han Decl. ¶ 3). Bowles – whose hourly rate is $585 – expended a total of 2.9 hours in connection with the Motion to Compel (1 hour meeting and conferring + 1.9 hours researching and drafting the Motion to Compel and supporting documents), corresponding to fees in the amount of $1696.50. (Bowles Decl. ¶ 8). Han – whose hourly rate is $480 – expended a total of 18.9 hours in connection with the Motion to Compel (researching and drafting the Motion to Compel and supporting documents), corresponding to $9072 in fees. (Han Decl. ¶ 3).

III. PERTINENT LAW

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties 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. 26(b)(1). Information within the foregoing scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). A party must respond to interrogatories by answer or objection; the ground for the objection must be stated with specificity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). General or boilerplate objections 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). “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).

*3 Pursuant to Rule 34, any party may serve on any other party a request for the production or inspection of documents within the scope of Rule 26(b) which are in the responding party's possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Documents are deemed to be within a party's possession, custody or control if the party has actual possession, custody or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand. In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 517 U.S. 1205 (1996). Accordingly, a party has an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its responses to discovery, and based on that inquiry, a party responding to a Rule 34 production request is under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably available to it from its employees, agents, or others subject to its control. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 189 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Unless excused by a protective order, in response to a request for the production of documents a party must, within 30 days of service thereof and as to each item or category, either: (1) state that the inspection will be permitted/production will be made; or (2) state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons, and state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(C). If the responding party states that it will produce documents, such production must be completed no later than the time specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).

If a party fails timely to object to discovery requests, such a failure generally constitutes a waiver of any objections which a party might have to the requests.[4] See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”) (citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 948 (1992); Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 409-10 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (court declined to consider objections that were not asserted in responding party's original discovery responses based upon party's failure timely to make such objections); Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Rawstrom, 183 F.R.D. 668, 670-72 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (absent a showing of good cause objections to discovery requests were waived where they were interposed for the first time in a supplemental response served after the expiration of the period of time allowed for a response).[5]

*4 Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5), if a party's discovery motion is granted, the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard,[6] order a party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the moving party's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees unless the moving party filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action, the opposing party's conduct was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

Local Rules 37-1, et seq. govern the filing of motions to compel discovery in the Central District of California. Such rules essentially contemplate that when a discovery dispute exists, the following shall occur: (1) the moving party will send the opposing party a meet and confer letter which comports with Local Rule 37-1,[7] with the opposing party having ten days to confer; (2) thereafter, if the parties are unable to resolve their differences, the moving party shall send the moving party's portion of a joint stipulation which comports with Local Rule 37-2.1 & 37-2.2 (and all supporting documents) to the opposing party, with the opposing party having seven days to insert its position and return the joint stipulation (and all supporting documents) to the moving party; (3) the moving party shall then sign the joint stipulation and send the joint stipulation to the opposing party who must sign and return the joint stipulation by the end of the next business day; (4) the moving party shall then file the joint stipulation along with a notice of motion, setting the matter for hearing not sooner than 21 days later/the court's next subsequent regular hearing date; and (5) the parties may file supplemental memoranda not later than fourteen days before the hearing date. See Local Rules 37-1, 37-2, 37-2.1, 37-2.2, 37-2.3, 37-3. Alternatively, in the event that the opposing party fails to fulfill any of its foregoing obligations, Local Rule 37-2.4 allows the moving party to file a motion (not a joint stipulation) with a declaration attesting to the opposing party's failure, along with a notice of motion, setting the matter for not sooner than 28 days later/the court's next subsequent regular hearing date, with the opposing party's opposition due 21 days before the hearing date and the moving party's reply due 14 days before the hearing date.[8] See Local Rule 37-2.4. Local Rule 37-4 provides that the failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions

IV. DISCUSSION AND ORDERS

*5 Plaintiffs essentially seeks an order compelling (1) Defendant Moeinolmolki to provide (a) further responses, under oath, to Interrogatory Nos. 1-23; (b) further responses without objection and in compliance with the Protective Order and E-Discovery Order, and documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1-37; (c) a “destruction/unavailable log”; and (d) to the extent the Court does not find privilege has been waived, a privilege log; and (2) Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,768.50, the attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the Motion to Compel. As noted above, Defendant did not file an opposition or other response to the Motion to Compel.

The Court, having considered the submissions in connection with the Motion to Compel, the pertinent facts and law, and the record, and after conducting a holistic reasonableness analysis and considering the Burlington factors and other pertinent authority, hereby finds and orders: