*1 On January 17, 2024, defendant L.A. Arena Company, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule” or “Rules”) 37(c) and Central District Local Rule (“Local Rule” or “Local Rules”) 37-1 and for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 (“Motion”), along with the parties Joint Stipulation and the supporting Declaration of Robin Samuel (Docket No. 46). On January 25, 2024, Defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum (“Supplement”) in support of the Motion (Dkt. # 48). Plaintiff did not file any supplemental briefing.

On January 30, 2024, the Court entered a text only entry confirming receipt of the Motion and Supplement, advising the parties that, pursuant to Rule 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court would rule on the papers submitted without a hearing (Dkt. # 49). On March 5, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting, in part, Defendants' previously filed Motion to Compel (Dkt. # 41, 42) and imposed evidentiary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(c) (“March Order”). On March 15, 2024, pursuant to the Court's order, counsel for the parties filed supplemental declarations in support of the Motion.

In the Motion, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories propounded pursuant to Rule 33 (“Interrogatories”) and Requests for Production of Documents propounded pursuant to Rule 34 (“Requests”), and for an award of monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(c) for Plaintiff's failure to comply with his discovery obligations.

Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Motion, arguing generally that he has reasonably complied with the Requests, and that no further responses are required.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court Grants Defendant's Motion, in part.

Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by Rule 26, which states that “[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.” Rule 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “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). Relevancy should be “construed ‘liberally and with common sense’ and discovery should be allowed unless the information sought has no conceivable bearing on the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992)).

With regard to the discovery at issue in the Motion, 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). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Rule 33(b)(4). 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).

*2 Pursuant to Rule 34(a)(1), a party may serve on any other party requests, to produce or permit inspection of, among other things, “(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information.” 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, “[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).

“Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance. In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” United States v. McGraw–Hill Cos., 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“The 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.”); Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

The Joint Stipulation specifies the disputes as follows:

The Court will address the issues in the order presented and has aggregated the issues for purposes of clarity and efficiency.

*3 As an initial matter, the Court finds that all the Requests for Production and Interrogatories at issue in this Motion seek discoverable information under Rule 26(b)(1). Thus, the only issues as to each of the disputed discovery requests and responses are: (1) Whether Plaintiff met his burden to support his objections and, if not, (2) whether Plaintiff properly responded to the discovery requests at issue.

A. Interrogatory Nos. 2-7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17

Interrogatory No. 2:

Identify all vaccines and immunizations YOU have received during YOUR lifetime.

Response to Interrogatory No. 2:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: I received the immunizations required in California for attending the school system and for attending college. I believe one of them was for Hepatitis, but I do not remember the others.

In the Motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's response is inadequate, as he has failed to “separately and fully” respond under oath as required regarding his vaccination history, and must, at a minimum, provide an amended response providing more fulsome information regarding his vaccination history or provide an amended response detailing the efforts he used to obtain the information. (Motion at 10-12.) Plaintiff contends that the Interrogatory is intrusive, as it seeks his “private medical information,” and is overly broad as it covers his entire lifetime. (Id. at 13.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff's response fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 33, as he has not fully answered the Interrogatory. Rule 33 requires a party to provide a full and complete response to each individual interrogatory. Rule 33(b)(3). “The answers to interrogatories must be responsive, full, complete and unevasive.” United States ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corporation, CV 10-3165 GHK (SS), 2015 WL 12731923, *4 (C.D. Cal, July 24, 2015), quoting Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 684 (D. Kan 1991). A responding party must exert a reasonable effort to provide a full response and cannot limit his answers and ignore information reasonably available and under his control. Celgene, 2015 WL 12731923, at *4 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff's vaccination history is relevant and, therefore, discoverable, as he raised claims that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his refusal to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine due to his sincerely held religious beliefs. Thus, any history of vaccination bears on Plaintiff's claims. While the Interrogatory does request information for Plaintiff's entire life, such information is relevant to show any history of prior vaccination. Plaintiff's objections are not warranted, and the Court finds that he has failed to respond “fully” as required by Rule 33. Plaintiff has an obligation to search for his vaccination history, and while his history as an infant may be of negligible relevance, his adult history is certainly relevant. As such, he must serve an amended response providing the information requested and, such response must be fulsome, with dates and types of vaccines, and if such information cannot be obtained, he must detail the efforts he used to seek the information.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 2, and Plaintiff must serve an amended response.

Interrogatory No. 3:

*4 Describe when YOU developed the religious beliefs specific to COVID-19 vaccination identified in YOUR COMPLAINT. As used in these interrogatories, “COMPLAINT” means the First Amended Complaint filed by YOU in this lawsuit.

Response to Interrogatory No. 3:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: I have been a practicing Christian for my entire life. For all of my adult life, I have used the scriptural command that if I lack wisdom, I am to ask God and He will be faithful to give me wisdom. When I did research into the business of providing services for pandemics, it was a time of concern and needing to seek God's wisdom. I became concerned and distraught over my feelings of uneasiness regarding the process, and I shared these concerns with my Pastor in 2014. When the development of the COVID-19 vaccine information was being disseminated during the pandemic, I immediately had concerns about what the public was being told by the Government about COVID-19 vaccine, including the Government seeking 100% compliance from the public with taking the vaccine and condemning anyone who disagreed with taking the vaccine. I felt the Holy Spirit that dwells within me was trying to warn me of the danger of the vaccine. I have listened to the Holy Spirit my entire life and so I listened when it was telling me that there was something wrong with what was being said by the NIAID, NIH, CDC, U.S. Government, social media, and news agencies. Once again, I believed that the Holy Spirit was reminding me that according to scripture my body is a temple and that God is who owns my body.

Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's response to Interrogatory No. 3 is “evasive” and “unresponsive,” and that it fails to “identify when he developed the religious beliefs that are at issue in this lawsuit” (Motion at 15). Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the response “exactly” describes when he developed the religious beliefs at issue. (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff's response, while generally explains his religious history, fails to explain how his beliefs are specific to the COVID-19 vaccination objection. Moreover, the response is nonsensical to the extent it references discussing his “uneasiness regarding the process” with his pastor in the context of “pandemics” in 2014, as the COVID-19 pandemic did not arise until late 2019. The response also fails to cite to aspects of Plaintiff's faith as it pertains to the COVID-19 vaccination, and instead focuses on his individual concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiff's response is thus deficient.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 3, and Plaintiff must serve an amended response.

Interrogatory No. 4:

Identify all churches, congregations, prayer groups, or other religious organizations with which YOU have been associated during the last five years.

Response to Interrogatory No. 4:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: God's House, Centerpoint Church, Rancho Church, (Charity) Global Outreach International, and (Charity) Free Wheelchair Mission.

*5 Defendant contends that Plaintiff's response to Interrogatory No. 4 is insufficient, as it fails to adequately – fully – identify the requested entity information (Motion at 17). Plaintiff contends that the responses are adequate, however, he agrees to provide the requested address. (Id.) However, he apparently had failed to do so, as of the date of the filing of the Motion. The Court finds that the information sought properly includes the addresses and telephone numbers for each of the responsive entities in order to be answered “fully.”

The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 4, and Plaintiff must serve

Interrogatory No. 5:

For each church, congregation, prayer group or other religious organization identified in YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 4, state how often YOU attended religious services or meetings provided or hosted by such churches, congregations, groups or organizations in the last four years.

Response to Interrogatory No. 5:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: In 2019, I attended God's House weekly for church services until my Pastor relocated to Montana to become a church planter. In 2021, I attended a weekly Bible study at Centerpoint Church for several months during their Bible study series “Experiencing God.” I attended Rancho Church as a child.

Defendant contends Plaintiff's response is incomplete, as it does not include the dates he attended the services or meetings (Motion at 19). Plaintiff disagrees, noting that he did provide a response as to the frequency of his attendance. (Id.) The Court finds that the response is partially – but not fully - responsive. For example, while Plaintiff does provide a frequency (weekly) regarding his attendance at God's House, he does not give the period for such attendance. Plaintiff states he attended weekly church services “until my pastor relocated to Montana to become a church planter.” However, Plaintiff does not state when his pastor left. Plaintiff must supplement his response to fully respond to the Interrogatory with regarding to frequency and period of attendance.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 5, and Plaintiff must serve

Interrogatory No. 6:

Identify any anti-vaccination Facebook, Reddit, or other social media or internet forums or groups YOU have visited or participated in during the last five years.

Response to Interrogatory No. 6:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: None. A friend or family member might have sent me something via text or email, however I do not recall seeking any anti-vaccination social media or internet forums or groups.

Defendant again contends that Plaintiff's response fails to specify any anti-vaccine social media sites he visited (as he acknowledges that friends or family “may have sent me something”), and also fails to detail the steps he took to identify any responsive information (Complaint at 21). Plaintiff replies that his response of “none” suffices. (Id.)

The Court finds a further response is warranted if, in fact, Plaintiff viewed social media posts or sites provided to him by third parties, along with sufficient identifying information. If, on the other hand, Plaintiff's response remains “none,” he must confirm that he has conducted a diligent search to confirm that he has no responsive information, explaining the search efforts he conducted for purposes of determining whether he had any responsive information. (Celgene, 2015 WL 12731923, *4 (citing Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp, 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. PA 1996).

*6 The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 6, and Plaintiff must serve an amended response.

Interrogatory No. 7:

Identify the component(s) of the COVID-19 vaccine that YOU object to putting into YOUR body on the basis of YOUR religious beliefs.

Response to Interrogatory No. 7:

I have been a practicing Christian for my entire life. For all of my adult life, I have used the scriptural command that if I lack wisdom, I am to ask God and He will be faithful to give me wisdom. When I did research into the business of providing services for pandemics, it was a time of concern and needing to seek God's wisdom. I became concerned and distraught over my feelings of uneasiness regarding the process, and I shared these concerns with my Pastor in 2014. When the development of the COVID-19 vaccine information was being disseminated during the pandemic, I immediately had concerns about what the public was being told by the Government about COVID-19 vaccine, including the Government seeking 100% compliance from the public with taking the vaccine and condemning anyone who disagreed with taking the vaccine. I felt the Holy Spirit that dwells within me was trying to warn me of the danger of the vaccine. I have listened to the Holy Spirit my entire life and so I listened when it was telling me that there was something wrong with what was being said by the NIAID, NIH, CDC, U.S. Government, social media, and news agencies. Once again, I believed that the Holy Spirit was reminding me that according to scripture my body is a temple and that God is who owns my body.

Interrogatory No. 9:

Describe when YOU first learned that the COVID-19 vaccine might conflict with YOUR religious beliefs referred to in Interrogatory No. 3 above.

Response to Interrogatory No. 9:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: I have been a practicing Christian for my entire life. For all of my adult life, I have used the scriptural command that if I lack wisdom, I am to ask God and He will be faithful to give me wisdom. When I did research into the business of providing services for pandemics, it was a time of concern and needing to seek God's wisdom. I became concerned and distraught over my feelings of uneasiness regarding the process, and I shared these concerns with my Pastor in 2014. When the development of the COVID-19 vaccine information was being disseminated during the pandemic, I immediately had concerns about what the public was being told by the Government about COVID-19 vaccine, including the Government seeking 100% compliance from the public with taking the vaccine and condemning anyone who disagreed with taking the vaccine. I felt the Holy Spirit that dwells within me was trying to warn me of the danger of the vaccine. I have listened to the Holy Spirit my entire life and so I listened when it was telling me that there was something wrong with what was being said by the NIAID, NIH, CDC, U.S. Government, social media, and news agencies. Once again, I believed that the Holy Spirit was reminding me that according to scripture my body is a temple and that God is who owns my body.

*7 With respect to both Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 9, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's responses are non-responsive, as he “simply copied his response to Interrogatory No. 3 verbatim into each of his responses” (Motion at 24). Plaintiff contends that the responses are valid but indicates that he will nonetheless amend his response to Interrogatory No. 7 (Id.). The Court finds that the responses to both Interrogatories are deficient. While it is certainly expedient to duplicate responses to discovery, it is not proper unless the Interrogatory is answered “separately, and fully” as required by Rule 33. Interrogatory No. 7 asks the specific components of the COVID-19 vaccine to which Plaintiff objects on the basis of his religious beliefs. Plaintiff's response simply regurgitates a previous response, with no attempt at specificity to the question posed. Plaintiff commits the same error with his response to Interrogatory No. 9, which seeks a specific time frame or date. Plaintiff has not “separately and fully” responded to either Interrogatory, as required by Rule 33.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 9, and Plaintiff must serve amended responses.

Interrogatory No. 11:

IDENTIFY each category of relief YOU seek in YOUR COMPLAINT. With reference to a category of relief, “IDENTIFY” means to provide the type, nature, amount and method of calculation of the category of relief sought.

Response to Interrogatory No. 11:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it calls for financial and other economic information already within Defendant's possession or control, and may call for expert witness testimony. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: Plaintiff believes his damages, including but not limited to, general damages, special damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, are approximately in the amount of $300,000. (we need an amount).

Defendant requests that Plaintiff withdraw his objection to Interrogatory No. 11, which seeks information regarding Plaintiff's claim for damages. Specifically, Defendant contends it is improper for Plaintiff to object on the basis that Defendant may have some of the information used to compute his damages. (Motion at 26-27.) Plaintiff refuses to withdraw his objection, contending that “Defendants are in possession of Plaintiff's pre-termination earnings and Plaintiff has provided all post-termination earnings information to Defendants,” and that computing his damages would require an expert, be expensive and would be burdensome.” (Id. at 27.)

The Court finds the objection is improper and, as such, it is overruled. Plaintiff must provide a fulsome response as information regarding his damages is of fundamental importance to Defendant and is certainly relevant. Plaintiff initiated the instant action, and it is his obligation to provide information regarding his claims for damages, particularly as he failed to provide adequate damages computations in his disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). (See March Order.) Moreover, “it is not a valid objection to state the requested information is already in the requesting party's control.” Celgene, at *4, quoting Wagner v, St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 238 F.R.D. 418, 427, (N.D.W.Va.).

The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 11, and Plaintiff must serve an amended response.

Interrogatory No. 12:

IDENTIFY each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER YOU have consulted for any medical condition or treatment relating to COVID-19 or any vaccination or immunization, or for any therapy or counseling, whether physical or mental, in the past five years. As used in these interrogatories, “HEALTH CARE PROVIDER” shall mean any doctor or other practitioner of medical science or healing arts, including but not limited to counselors, nurses, chiropractors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, physical therapists, and hospitals, clinics, hospices and other institutions providing health care. When referring to a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, “IDENTIFY” means to state: (i) the name and address of the HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (ii) the type of practice or specialty; (iii) the dates of treatment; and (iv) the dates of the condition for which YOU consulted the HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.

Response to Interrogatory No. 12:

*8 Objections: This interrogatory seeks information which is protected by multiple privacy protections; and may call for expert witness information. Without waiving this objection, and with the understanding the Plaintiff is unaware of the address and phone numbers, Plaintiff responds: I consulted Monica Harvey a nurse, regarding natural therapeutics and medications to treat COVID-19. Dr. Pham. Todd Miller, therapist. Sean Miller, chiropractor.

Interrogatory No. 14:

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON from whom YOU and/or YOUR attorneys have obtained a written statement concerning the allegations in YOUR COMPLAINT, and for each, state the date the statement was made, the identities of the PERSONS giving and taking the statement, and the contents of the statement.

Response to Interrogatory No. 14:

Objections: Plaintiff objects to the entirety of this request as this interrogatory seeks privileged information within the attorney-client privilege and information that is the attorney's work product.

With respect to Interrogatory No. 12, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's response is insufficient, as he has failed to provide the contact information and dates of service or treatment for each of the providers listed. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's contention to the contrary – and his prefatory statement in the response that he is responding with “the understanding the Plaintiff is unaware of the address and phone numbers” of the responsive providers-the Interrogatory specifically requested the information Defendant now seeks. Rule 33 requires a party to provide a full and complete response to each individual Interrogatory. Rule 33(b)(3). “The answers to interrogatories must be responsive, full, complete and unevasive.” Celgene, 2015 WL 12731923, at *4 (citation omitted). A responding party must exert a reasonable effort to provide a full response and cannot limit his answers and ignore information reasonable available and under his control. Celgene, 2015 WL 12731923, at *4 (citations omitted).

Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 12, as it seeks Plaintiff's medical provider history as it pertains to his vaccination history and COVID-19. The contact information and other information regarding Plaintiff's medical providers is under his control, since they are his providers, and he is obligated to conduct a reasonable inquire for purposes of obtaining the responsive information for purposes of providing a full response. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Plaintiff must serve an amended response. To the extent any privacy or confidentiality issues are implicated, the parties can address such in an appropriate stipulated protective order.

With regard to Interrogatory No. 14, for the same reasons as with Interrogatory No. 12 above, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's objections are likewise overruled, on the same basis. Any confidentiality concerns can be addressed with an appropriate protective order. Plaintiff has an obligation to “fully” respond to the Interrogatory pursuant to Rule 33 and, therefore, needs to provide an amended response, under oath, confirming that no such statements exist and, if Plaintiff is asserting the privileges cited in his objections, he must identify the statement(s) to which the privilege is claimed and produce a privilege log.

Interrogatory No. 15:

IDENTIFY each effort YOU have made to find employment since January 1, 2020, including full and/or part-time employment, selfemployment, any independent contractor or consulting arrangement, and/or freelance work. As used in these interrogatories, when referring to efforts to find employment, “IDENTIFY” means to state: (a) the name of the employer, employment agency and recruiting/search firm YOU have contacted or been contacted by; (b) the date(s) of each contact; (c) the jobs or positions for which YOU applied; (d) any responses YOU received from such employers or employment agencies; (e) any offers of employment YOU received and the terms of such offers (including salary and benefits); (f) for each position YOU were offered but did not accept, the reason(s) YOU did not accept the position; and (g) a description of each DOCUMENT that relates or refers to YOUR attempts to find employment and YOUR acceptance of any employment. As used in these interrogatories, “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” mean writings, including the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photocopies, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination of them.

Response to Interrogatory No. 15:

*9 Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: Plaintiff hereby elects to provide documents responsive to this request, in his accompanying response to Defendant's Requests for Production.

Interrogatory No. 17:

IDENTIFY every source of income, compensation, and/or benefits of any kind YOU have received since January 1, 2022, including, without limitation, employment income, self-employment and independent contractor or consulting compensation, severance payments, salary continuation benefits, workers' compensation benefits, unemployment insurance compensation, disability insurance benefits, social security or similar benefits or payments, insurance proceeds, or fees for services rendered. As used in these interrogatories, when referring to sources of income, compensation and/or benefits, “IDENTIFY” means to state: (i) the type of income, compensation or benefit; (ii) the total amount YOU received or to which YOU are entitled to receive; (iii) the dates on which YOU received such income, compensation, and/or benefits; (iv) whether the payments are continuing or will continue in the future; and (v) a description of each DOCUMENT which refers or relates to YOUR answers to this Interrogatory including, without limitation, pay statements, tax forms (e.g., Form 1099s, Form W-2s, federal and/or state tax returns), investment reports or summaries, and summary plan descriptions.

Response to Interrogatory No. 17:

Objections: This interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds: Plaintiff hereby elects to provide documents responsive to this request, in his accompanying response to Defendant's Requests for Production.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 17 are wholly inadequate, as he has again failed to “separately and fully” respond. As noted previously, Rule 33 requires each Interrogatory to be answered separately and fully, and Plaintiff has failed to do so. While in some circumstances it may be permissible for a responding party to direct a requesting party to documents as a proper response (see, e.g., Rainbow Pioneer No. 44-18-04A v. Haw.-Nev. Inv. Corp., 711 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1983), “the responding party has a duty to specify by category and location the records from which he knows the answers to the interrogatories can be found.” Preservation Technologies, LLV v. Mindgeek USA, Inc., 17-cv-08906 DOC (JPR) 2020 WL 10965161, at *3 (C.D. Cal. December 18, 2020), quoting Cambridge Elecs. Corp. v. MGA Elecs., Inc., 227 F.R.D. 313, 323 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

Plaintiff has failed to respond as required and may need to amend his response. However, in light of the Court's March 5, 2024 Order regarding Defendants' previous Motion to Compel which, inter alia, found Defendants' affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages was deemed established as a matter of law, Defendant has subsequently informed the Court that it no longer seeks to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 17. (Supplemental Declaration of Robin Samuel at ¶26.) Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED, as moot, with regard to these two Interrogatories.

B. Requests for Production Nos. 10, 14, 54-56, 60-67

Request for Production No. 10:

*10 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 12 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[DEFENDANTS] only offered discriminatory and mocking language, coupled with trivializing [YOUR] religious exemption request” and “further failed to offer [YOU] any reasonable accommodation.”

Response to Request for Production No. 10:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he shall produce the following documents in his possession, custody, and control

Request for Production No. 14:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraphs 27, 33, 45, 61 and 81 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] suffered significant damages because of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, and the costs of bringing this action.”

Response to Request for Production No. 14:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome. Moreover, it may call for expert opinion as to the calculation of damages.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he shall produce the following documents in his possession, custody, and control:

Request for Production No. 54:

All COMMUNICATIONS with any current or former officers, employees or agents of DEFENDANTS following YOUR separation of employment with DEFENDANTS.

Response to Request for Production No. 54:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that

Request for Production No. 55:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or reflecting any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any current or former officers, employees or agents of DEFENDANTS regarding the alleged events set forth in YOUR COMPLAINT.

Response to Request for Production No. 55:

Objection: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that

Request for Production No. 56:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or reflecting any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON (other than YOUR legal counsel) CONCERNING DEFENDANTS and/or any of the allegations or claims in YOUR COMPLAINT.

Response to Request for Production No. 56:

*11 Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that (Mr. Camp is asking for your advice on this, he has not provided a response. It's a broad request).

Request for Production No. 60:

All text messages or instant messages between YOU and any PERSON CONCERNING any aspect of YOUR opinions or beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine and/or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Response to Request for Production No. 60:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Additionally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns. This request as written as to “any PERSON” seeks privileged information within the attorney-client privilege.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that

Request for Production No. 61:

All text messages or instant messages between YOU and any PERSON regarding YOUR decision to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.

Response to Request for Production No. 61:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Additionally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns. This request as written as to “any PERSON” seeks privileged information within the attorney-client privilege.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds

Request for Production No. 62:

All emails that YOU sent from YOUR email account provided by DEFENDANTS to a personal email account that RELATE TO YOUR COMPLAINT.

Response to Request for Production No. 62:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Additionally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds

Request for Production No. 63:

*12 All emails that YOU sent from YOUR email account provided by DEFENDANTS to a personal email account that RELATE TO YOUR separation of employment from DEFENDANTS.

Response to Request for Production No. 63:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Additionally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns. This request as written as to “any PERSON” seeks privileged information within the attorney-client privilege.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that

Request for Production No. 64:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any damages YOU contend YOU incurred as a result of any matters alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT, including all DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the calculation of such damages.

Response to Request for Production No. 64:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome, and it is duplicative of previous request No. 14. Moreover, it may call for expert opinion as to the calculation of damages.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, see Plaintiff's Response to Request No. 14.

Request for Production No. 65:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the efforts made by YOU, if any, to mitigate any damages YOU allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the actions alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

Response to Request for Production No. 65:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that

Request for Production No. 66:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any mental or emotional distress YOU have suffered from during the last five (5) years to date, including, but not limited to, anxiety, grief, depression, attention deficit disorders, worry, shock, fright, or other mental, emotional, or psychological impairments or disorders.

Response to Request for Production No. 66:

Objection: This request seeks information which is protected by multiple privacy protections, and may call for expert witness information.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds

Request for Production No. 67:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any employment YOU sought, had or obtained, other than YOUR employment with DEFENDANTS, from January 1, 2020, through the present, including, but not limited to, those DOCUMENTS CONCERNING: a. job title or position; b. total compensation received, including bonus, overtime pay, and commissions; c. benefits received or accrued; d. descriptions of duties, responsibilities, and exceptions; and e. performance evaluations, reviews and appraisals

Response to Request for Production No. 67:

*13 Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds

With respect to Requests for Production Nos. 10, 14, 54-56 and 60-67, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's responses are incomplete and/or appear to be in draft form, many containing partial sentences with missing words or punctuation. For example, in Response to Request for Production No. 55, Plaintiff states “without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference Plaintiff responds that” (sic). For Response to Request for Production No. 56, Plaintiff's response concludes with the following parenthetical “(Mr. Camp is asking for your advice on this, he has not provided a response. It's a broad request).” Defendant contends that such responses make it impossible to determine what documents, if any, Plaintiff possesses for purposes of production.

Plaintiff responds that he has produced all responsive documents, following a meet-and-confer on this Motion, and that he does not need to either supplement or amend his responses.

Plaintiff is mistaken. Rule 34 requires Plaintiff to either produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control (Rule 34(a)(1)), or state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of a stated objection (Rule 34(b)(2)(c)). Any materials not subject to objection must be produce or allowed to be inspected. Rule 34(b)(2)(B), (C). In answering a request, a party must provide responses which are “complete, explicit and responsive.” Hash v. Cate, No. C 08-03729 MMC (DMR), 2012 WL 6043466, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012). Here, Plaintiff's responses are not complete, not explicit and not responsive.

To the extent Plaintiff has provided responsive documents, he is still required to provide complete, full and final responses, including specifying the documents responsive to each request. Plaintiff has not stated that material will be produced, nor specified what – if any – material is being withheld on the basis of objection. Plaintiff must amend his answers to provide full and complete responses in final – not draft – form.

The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 10, 14, 54-56 and 60-67. Plaintiff must serve amended responses for these requests.

C. Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 22

Request for Production No. 2:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegation of Paragraph 7 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] believe [ ] that [YOUR] body belongs to God and is a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

Response to Request for Production No. 2:

Objections: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation and voluminous materials prepared for hundreds of years as to the belief system to which Plaintiff adheres. This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant. The essence of his beliefs is contained in Holy Scripture. Finally, there are aspects of Plaintiff's belief system that are written on his heart and not subject to production.

*14 Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request, other than Plaintiff's Request for Religious Exception Request Form previously provided to Defendant.

Request for Production No. 3:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegation of Paragraph 8 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] believe [ ] that it is against [YOUR] religion to ingest or inject [YOUR] body with possible harmful substances.”

Response to Request for Production No. 3:

Objections: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation and voluminous materials prepared for hundreds of years as to the belief system to which Plaintiff adheres. This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant. The essence of his beliefs is contained in Holy Scripture. Finally, there are aspects of Plaintiff's belief system that are written on his heart and not subject to production.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request, other than Plaintiff's Request for Religious Exception Request Form previously provided to Defendant.

Request for Production No. 6:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or otherwise reflect YOUR attendance of religious services, online or in person, at any church.

Response to Request for Production No. 6:

Objections: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request is overbroad and vague and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds as follows: See Plaintiff's Response to Request No. 1, Plaintiff has no additional documents in his possession or control at this time as the religious services were online.

Request for Production No. 7:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or otherwise reflect YOUR viewing of sermons, online or in person, at any church.

Response to Request for Production No. 7:

Objections: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request is overbroad and vague and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds as follows: See Plaintiff's Response to Request No. 1, Plaintiff has no additional documents in his possession or control at this time as the religious services were online.

Request for Production No. 11:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 24 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] held a deeply sincere religious objection to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine injection.”

Response to Request for Production No. 11:

Objections: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation and voluminous materials prepared for hundreds of years as to the belief system to which Plaintiff adheres. This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant. Moreover, the essence of his beliefs is not generally subject to documentation.

*15 Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request, other than Plaintiff's Request for Religious Exception Request Form previously provided to Defendant.

Request for Production No. 22:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 73 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “DEFENDANT was aware of [YOUR] sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Response to Request for Production No. 22:

Objection: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request as the documents requested are already in the possession and control of Defendant, such as the aforementioned Plaintiff's Request for Religious Exception Request Form.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff's responses are deficient for Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 22, as he has failed to attest that he has made a good faith effort to search for and produce responsive documents, failed to state whether he is withholding any documents, and why there are no other responsive documents. (Motion at 47-48.)

Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that none of the responses indicate that he has withheld any documents, and that he has provided all of the documents within his possession, custody, and control. Plaintiff contends that his responses were appropriate and complete. (Id. at 48-49.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 22 are deficient, as he has not affirmatively stated that he has conducted a diligent search, nor explained the reasons why he cannot produce such documents. As discussed, Rule 34 requires a party to produce responsive documents in his “possession, custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Responses must be “complete, explicit and responsive.” Hash, 2012 WL 6043966, at *2. For purposes of Rule 34, a document is in a party's control if he has the legal right to obtain it from a third party. (Jang v. Sagicor Life Ins. Co., EDCV17-1563-JGB (KKx), 2018 WL 7891000, at *2, 4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018) (citing Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 603 (S.D. Cal 2012). Further, a party has a duty to undertake a diligent search and to make a reasonable inquiry for purposes of locating the documents requested, and to state it has done so in its response to discovery. Garcia v. Bana, No. C 11-02047 LB, 2012 WL 2119157, at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2012).

As with Plaintiff's medical providers, the documents underpinning his religious beliefs and evidencing the practice of his faith (such as pertaining to attendance at services, prayer, groups, etc....) are inherently within his control if either he or his religious institution are in possession of such documents.

Thus, to the extent such documents exist, Plaintiff is obligated to indicate as much, and produce them and, if necessary, request copies from his church, prayer group, pastor, or other religious affiliate. To the extent responsive documents do not exist, he must so affirmatively state, and also attest to his reasonable inquiry and search for any responsive documents.

*16 Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 22. Plaintiff must serve amended responses for these requests, either identifying the responsive documents, including those in his control in the possession of third parties, or verifying his diligent search and that no such documents exist.

D. Requests for Production Nos. 4, 5, 21 and 23

Request for Production No. 4:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or otherwise reflect YOUR membership in any church, congregation, prayer group or religious organization.

Response to Request for Production No. 4:

Objection: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production and is therefore unduly burdensome. Moreover, the term “membership” is a vague term, which is inapplicable to many followers.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds as follows: See Plaintiff's Response to Request No. 1.

Request for Production No. 5:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or otherwise reflect YOUR association with any church, congregation, prayer group or religious organization.

Response to Request for Production No. 5:

Objection: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production and is therefore unduly burdensome.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds as follows: See Plaintiff's Response to Request No. 1.

Request for Production No. 21:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraphs 52 and 73 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU are] a devout believer in [and follower of] Christianity.”

Response to Request for Production No. 21:

Objection: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous request for production No. 1, and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request is overbroad and vague and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Moreover, the essence of his beliefs is not generally subject to documentation.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds as follows: See Plaintiff's Response to Request No. 1.

Request for Production No. 23:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 53 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] hold[ ] strong beliefs based on [YOUR] understanding of the teachings of Christianity, which prohibit[ ] [YOU] from utilizing vaccines made from fetal tissues or anything harmful to [YOUR] body which [YOU] consider[ ] a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

Response to Request for Production No. 23:

Objections: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production No. 1, 3, and 6, and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request is overbroad and vague and is therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Moreover, the essence of his beliefs is not generally subject to documentation.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds as follows: See Plaintiff's Responses to Request No. 1, 3 and 6.

Defendant again contends that Plaintiff's responses are deficient on the basis that he has not produced any responsive documents, nor confirmed that he has conducted a diligent search for responsive documents, and/or verified that no such documents exist. Plaintiff, on the other hand, maintains that the requests are duplicative of Requests for Production Nos. 2, 6, and 7, and harassing.

*17 The Court finds that, while these requests are similar to some of Defendant's other requests, they are not duplicative, nor are they harassing, as they seek relevant information. As stated, infra, Rule 34 requires a party to produce responsive documents in his “possession, custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Responses must be “complete, explicit and responsive.” Hash, 2012 WL 6043966, at *2. For purposes of Rule 34, a document is in a party's control if he has the legal right to obtain it from a third party. (Jang, 2018 WL 7891000, at *2, 4.) Plaintiff's responses are deficient, as they fail to either identify responsive documents or confirm that none exist. Garcia, 2012 WL 2119157, at *8,

Accordingly, Plaintiff must amend his responses to either identify any responsive documents, including those which he has a legal right to obtain from third parties, or attest to his diligent search and verifying that no such documents exist.

Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 4, 5, 21 and 23. Plaintiff must serve amended responses for these requests.

E. Requests for Production Nos. 32-35 and 38-41

Request for Production No. 32:

Each smartphone, tablet, computer or other device, including their hard drives and all metadata, that YOU used to transmit any COMMUNICATIONS regarding, or in connection with, YOUR request for an exemption from DEFENDANTS' COVID19 vaccination policy.

Response to Request for Production No. 32:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of attorney-client communications and other communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant. Finally, equipment of any such documentation requires meeting and conferring which has yet to occur.

Request for Production No. 33:

Each smartphone, tablet, computer or other device, including their hard drives and all metadata, that YOU have used to attend or view online religious services or meetings.

Response to Request for Production No. 33:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information, and calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant. Further, this request would involve disclosure of attorney-client communications and other communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request presents significant privacy concerns. Finally, production of any such equipment requires meeting and conferring which has yet to occur.

Request for Production No. 34:

Each smartphone, tablet, computer or other device, including their hard drives and all metadata, that YOU have used to look up information relating to the COVID19 vaccine.

Response to Request for Production No. 34:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information, and calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant. Further, this request would involve disclosure of attorney-client communications and other communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request presents significant privacy concerns. Moreover, production of any such equipment requires meeting and conferring which has yet to occur.

Request for Production No. 35:

*18 The complete internet browser history for each smartphone, tablet, computer or other device that is responsive to Request Nos. 33 and 34 above.

Response to Request for Production No. 35:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request for the “complete internet browser history” is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Request for Production No. 38:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or REFLECT YOUR participation in or viewing of any Facebook, Reddit, internet forums, internet groups, SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT, or websites regarding religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccination.

Response to Request for Production No. 38:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Request for Production No. 39:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or REFLECT YOUR participation in or viewing of any Facebook, Reddit, internet forums, internet groups, SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT, or websites regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccination.

Response to Request for Production No. 39:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Request for Production No. 40:

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or REFLECT YOUR participation in or viewing of any Facebook, Reddit, internet forums, internet groups, SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT, or websites regarding the risk of harm from COVID-19 vaccination.

Response to Request for Production No. 40:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

Request for Production No. 41:

*19 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or REFLECT YOUR participation in or viewing of any Facebook, Reddit, internet forums, internet groups, SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT, or websites regarding the health risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Response to Request for Production No. 41:

Response: Objection, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because this request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it is costly, unnecessarily time-consuming, not proportional considering the nature and needs of the case, the burden or expense of the request outweighs its likely benefit and won't likely lead to production of relevant and material information. Further, this request would involve disclosure of communications unrelated to the lawsuit. Finally, this request is overbroad and presents significant privacy concerns.

With respect to Requests for Production Nos. 32-35 and 38-41, Defendant seeks the production of (1) Plaintiff's electronic devices, including smartphones, tablets and computers, as well as any attendant hard drives and meta data, used in communications regarding Defendant's COVID-19 vaccination policy (No. 32); devices used to attend or view online religious services or meetings (No. 33); and/or devices used to look up information relating to the COVID-19 vaccine (No/ 34); (2) the complete browser history of the devices in Nos. 32, 33 and 34; and (3) all documents that relate to any social media groups or conduct regarding religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccination (No. 38); the safety of COVID-19 vaccination (No. 39), the risk of harm of the COVID-19 vaccination (No. 40), and the health risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic (No. 41).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff's devices are “clearly discoverable,” as he has stated that he attended religious services online and has produced partial (incomplete) threads of texts and emails in discovery. Defendant states that, in spite of only producing partial threads or screenshots of electronic communications and documents, Plaintiff has refused to produce the full threads or otherwise provide responsive documents in natural or other legible and complete formats. (Motion at 56-57.)

Plaintiff responds that he declines to withdraw his objections, and that he “has or will produced (sic) all documents within his possession and control responsive to the ... requests” and deems Defendant's request unreasonable, unproportional, and an undue burden and expense. (Motion at 57.) Plaintiff also objects to the intrusiveness of the search, though he concedes that neither he nor his counsel has the “technology” to download the entirety of the relevant text messages. (Id. at 58.)

With regard to the dispute over these requests, the Court initially notes that “[a] forensic examination of an opposing party's computer is considered an extraordinary remedy.” MGA Ent., Inc. v. Nat'l Prod. Ltd., No. 10-cv-07083 JAK (SSx), 2012 WL 12886446, at *2, n.2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012). Federal district courts “have consistently held that ‘mere suspicion or speculation that an opposing party may be withholding discoverable information is insufficient to support’ such an intrusive examination.” Juul Labs, Inc. v. Chou, 21-cv-03056 DSF (PDx), 2022 WL 2161062, at *2 (C.D. Cal. April 19, 2022) (quoting Hespe v. City of Chicago, 2016 WL 7240754, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2016).)

*20 The advisory committee notes to Rule 34 respecting the amendment specifically referencing electronically stored information (“ESI”), addressed the risk to searching a party's devices, noting that “[t]he addition of testing and sampling to Rule 34(a) with regard to documents and electronically stored information is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances. Courts should guard against undue intrusiveness resulting from inspection and testing such systems.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Advisory Comm. Notes. 2006 Amendment.

Here, in light of the balancing of interests required under Rule 26(b)(1), including whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, the Court finds that the requested search of Plaintiff's electronic devices is not warranted, at least at this time, in light of the findings below.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion as to Requests for Production Nos. 32, 33 and 34 is DENIED, without prejudice.

However, the Court finds that the information sought in Requests for Production Nos. 35 and 38-41 is both discoverable and appropriate in light of the allegations in the FAC and Plaintiff's other discovery responses. In particular, Plaintiff's complete browser history (No. 35) for his relevant devices, as well as the extant and complete email and text exchanges, and internet and social media queries concerning, inter alia, COVID-19 religious exemptions, are appropriately sought, and that these requests are less intrusive than the wholesale access to his electronic devices and are thus appropriate within the balancing mandate of Rule 26(b)(1). In the event Plaintiff lacks the technological or financial ability to further respond to these requests in a fulsome manner, Defendant shall retain a third-party vendor, at its expense, to facilitate the responses required under Rule 34 and this Order. In the event Plaintiff fails to provide the amended responses as ordered, or in the event such responses reveal any evasion or other improper conduct, the Court will revisit its denial of Defendant's Motion as to Requests for Production Nos. 32, 33 and 34.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 35 and 38-41. Plaintiff must amend his responses.

F. Requests for Production Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15-20, 28, 30, 42-44, and 46-49

Request for Production No. 9:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegation in Paragraph 11 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] and other vaccinated and unvaccinated employees had access to the control room until [YOUR] last physical working day on December 26, 2021.”

Response to Request for Production No. 9:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he has no such documents in his possession or control as they are in the possession or control of Defendant.

Request for Production No. 12:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[DEFENDANTS] did not attempt to and refused to accommodate [YOU] with any of the recommended accommodations they provided in [DEFENDANTS'] COVID-19 Policy from November 2021.”

Response to Request for Production No. 12:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

*21 Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 13:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 26 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOUR] religious beliefs and practices were a motivating factor in [YOUR] termination.”

Response to Request for Production No. 13:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request. These include numerous emails with Robin Samuels (counsel for AEG) which the responding party believes were challenging his beliefs.

Request for Production No. 15:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraphs 28, 34, 46, 62 and 82 of YOUR COMPLAINT that DEFENDANTS “intentionally violated [YOUR] rights ... with malice or reckless indifference.”

Response to Request for Production No. 15:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 16:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 43 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “DEFENDANT intentionally discriminated against [YOU] by making an adverse employment decision against [YOU] by terminating [YOUR] employment after 10 years of service.”

Response to Request for Production No. 16:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, in the form of emails that Plaintiff no longer has access to, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 17:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 44 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “DEFENDANT demonstrated discriminatory animus toward [YOU] by terminating [YOUR] employment and showing callous indifference toward [YOUR] sincere religious beliefs.”

Response to Request for Production No. 17:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, in the form of emails that Plaintiff no longer has access to, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 18:

*22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 44 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “DEFENDANT subsequently terminated [YOU] without explanation or providing any alternative after [YOUR] request for religious accommodation.”

Response to Request for Production No. 18:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, in the form of emails that Plaintiff no longer has access to, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 19:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 44 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “DEFENDANT terminated [YOUR] employment because of [YOUR] religious creed.”

Response to Request for Production No. 19:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, in the form of emails that Plaintiff no longer has access to, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 20:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 44 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “DEFENDANT discriminated against [YOU] based on [YOUR] religious beliefs.”

Response to Request for Production No. 20:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that the documents requested are in the possession and control of Defendant, and he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 28:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 75 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] told DEFENDANT that [YOU] would be willing to adhere to the suggested accommodations mentioned by DEFENDANT in its COVID19 Policy distributed November 2021.”

Response to Request for Production No. 28:

Objection: This request is overbroad and burdensome in that it seeks information equally available to defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he shall produce the following documents in his possession, custody, and control: Plaintiff believes that there are emails that demonstrate this fact, which he no longer has access to this. Moreover, his actions prove he was willing to work.

Request for Production No. 30:

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the allegations in Paragraph 77 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[YOU] felt bullied and coerced into getting the COVID-19 vaccine, causing anxiety and stress due to [YOUR] employer forcing [YOU] to choose between [YOUR] deeply held religious beliefs and [YOUR] financial livelihood and job.”

Response to Request for Production No. 30:

*23 Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he is unable to produce every email between himself Cathy Diaz, Angela Baker and the rest of the HR staff, nor the “Sweepstakes” emails from the HR department intended to coerce employees into getting vaccinated for cheap prizes since he no longer has access to those emails.

Request for Production No. 42:

All DOCUMENTS YOU submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Response to Request for Production No. 42:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for documentation equally available to Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that Defendant is already in possession of the requested documents and that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 43:

All DOCUMENTS YOU received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Response to Request for Production No. 43:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for documentation equally available to Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that Defendant is already in possession of the requested documents and that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 44:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any local, state or federal government entity or agency, including, but not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or California Department of Fair Employment and Housing CONCERNING DEFENDANTS, or any employee, agent, or representative of DEFENDANTS, at any time through the present.

Response to Request for Production No. 44:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for documentation equally available to Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that Defendant is already in possession of the requested documents and that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 46:

All DOCUMENTS that YOU contend evidence, support, or CONCERN YOUR allegations of unlawful conduct by DEFENDANTS.

Response to Request for Production No. 46:

Objection: This request is duplicative of Defendant's previous requests for production No. 9, 10, 12-20, and is therefore unduly burdensome. This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

*24 Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request. See Plaintiff's Responses to Requests 9, 10, 12-20.

Request for Production No. 47:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR employment with DEFENDANTS and/or any term or condition of YOUR employment with DEFENDANTS, including, but not limited to, agreements and/or contracts of employment, personnel records, personnel policies and procedures, employee handbooks, manuals, brochures, memoranda, collective bargaining agreements, and/or similar publications.

Response to Request for Production No. 47:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for documentation equally available to Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that Defendant is already in possession of the requested documents, and that he has no additional documents to produce in response to this request.

Request for Production No. 48:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR job responsibilities and duties during YOUR employment with DEFENDANTS.

Response to Request for Production No. 48:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he does not have the requested documents as they are already within the possession and control of Defendant.

Request for Production No. 49:

All DOCUMENTS that CONCERN any performance reviews or evaluations, demotions, promotions and/or disciplinary actions provided to YOU by DEFENDANTS at any time.

Response to Request for Production No. 49:

Objection: This request is overbroad, unreasonable and unduly burdensome in that it calls for extensive documentation created by, or already within the possession and control of, Defendant.

Response: Without waiving any of his general or specific objections set forth above and incorporated here by reference, Plaintiff responds that he does not have the requested documents as they are already within the possession and control of Defendant.

Finally, with regard to Requests for Production Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15-20, 28, 30, 42-44, and 46-49, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's responses are improper as he asserts in his responses that he has no responsive documents in his possession, and that the documents requested are in possession of Defendant. (FAC at 66-68.) For example, in response to Request for Production No. 30, Plaintiff responded that he is unable to produce documents pertaining to a specific allegation in the FAC because “he no longer has access to those emails.” (Motion at 63.)

First, to the extent Plaintiff has no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, he must so affirmatively state in order to provide a complete and explicit response. Rule 34(a)(1); see also, Rule 37(a)(4) (for purposes of a motion to compel, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.”)

*25 Second, if Plaintiff possesses responsive documents, it is improper to object on the basis that they are equally available to the requesting party. (O. L. v. City of El Monte, 20-cv-00797 RGK (JDEx), 2021 WL 926105, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021); Nat'l Acad. Of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, L.P., 256 F.R.D. 678, 682 (C.D. Cal. 2009). A party must respond to each request in a complete, individualized fashion, and responsive documents must be produced, irrespective of whether the documents have been produced in response to another request. Loven v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

Thus, to the extent Plaintiff has access to any such documents, either hard copies or ESI, he must produce them, and his objections are overruled. If Plaintiff has no responsive documents, he must so state, confirming that he has performed a thorough and diligent search. Plaintiff may not object or refuse to respond on the basis that such documents may be available to Defendant.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15-20, 28, 30, 42-44, and 46-49. Plaintiff must provide amended responses consistent with this Order.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion as follows:

Defendant's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Nos. 2-7, 9, 11, 12, 14 is GRANTED. With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 17, the Motion is DENIED as moot upon the request of Defendant.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Request for Production Nos. 2-7, 9-23, 28, 30, 35, 38-44, 46-49, 54-56 and 60-67 is GRANTED.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Request for Production Nos. 32, 33 and 34 is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff must provide amended responses to Defendant consistent with this Order, within 14 days of the date of this Order.

As Defendant has prevailed on the majority of the issued raised in its Motion, the Court will consider awarding monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Prior to issuing any award, the Court will afford the parties the opportunity to be heard. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the sanctions requested by Defendant in the Motion within 14 days of the date of this Order. Defendant may file any reply to such opposition within 7 days thereafter. The Court will thereafter take the matter under submission.