*1 The Magistrate Judge has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to “Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions, etc.” (“the Motion”), filed September 6, 2024, except Defendants' “Objections, etc.,” filed September 16, 2024 and Plaintiff's “Response, etc.,” filed September 17, 2024, both of which are stricken for violating Local Rule 37-2.3. The previously noticed September 27, 2024 hearing is vacated. The Magistrate Judge has taken the Motion under submission without oral argument. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants failed to comply fully and timely with the June 21, 2024 Order. For example, Defendants have failed and refused to produce all documents responsive to Request 58, making arguments (or re-arguments) concerning the scope of the request. For further example, Defendants failed to produce all documents ordered to be produced, and failed to serve a proper privilege log, by the July 25, 2024 deadline in the June 21, 2024 Order. The Magistrate Judge does not countenance such failures. Nevertheless, the draconian sanctions Plaintiff seeks would not be reasonable under the circumstances presented. For example, the “holistic reasonable analysis” prescribed by Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States District Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 939 (2005) does not support a deemed waiver of all of Defendants' privilege assertions. See also Sprague v. Financial Credit Network, Inc., 2018 WL 4616688, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) (“Even absent a showing of good cause, courts can exercise their discretion to find that a waiver is not warranted by the circumstances”); Chea v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2015 WL 12806553, at *1 (N.D. Cal. March 10, 2015) (same). For further example, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from Defendants' tardy and incomplete discovery productions to warrant the evidentiary sanctions requested.

The Motion seeks further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 13. This aspect of the Motion is denied because Defendants' responses are reasonably sufficient under the circumstances presented, provided the responses are verified.

Contrary to Plaintiff's apparent arguments, although Plaintiff is entitled to require Defendants to conduct a reasonable and diligent search for documents (including ESI) in accordance with the June 21, 2024 Order, Plaintiff is not entitled to dictate precisely how Defendants must go about doing so. See Terpin v. AT&T Inc., 2022 WL 3013153 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2022); see also Uschold v. Carriage Servs, Inc., 2019 WL 8298261, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) (“Generally, discovery on discovery is disfavored ...”) (citations and quotations omitted).

It is ordered that, to the extent not already done, Defendants belatedly shall complete a reasonable and diligent search for documents required by the June 21, 2024 Order and shall, on or before October 18, 2024: (1) produce all responsive nonprivileged documents within Defendants' possession, custody or control required by the June 21, 2024 Order; and (2) serve a privilege log identifying with particularity all documents withheld from production under claim of privilege.

*2 Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is also denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).