DAN TRUJILLO, Plaintiff, v. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., Defendants Case No. CV 20-7451 JWH (PVCx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed April 23, 2021 Counsel Kevin Shawn Conlogue, Law Offices of Kevin Conlogue, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff. William K. Enger, Mona Rambhai Shah, Sacro and Walker LLP, Glendale, CA, for Defendants. Castillo, Pedro V., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD.; AND (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. No. 25) *1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dan Trujillo's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (“MTC,” Dkt. No. 25). The Parties submitted a Joint Stipulation in connection with the Motion pursuant to Local Rule 37-2. (“Jt. Stip.,” Dkt. No. 25). In support of the Motion, Plaintiff submitted the Declaration of Kevin S. Conlogue (Dkt. No. 25-1) and attached exhibits 1–10. (Dkt. Nos. 25-2 through 25-11). Plaintiff separately filed a Supplemental Memorandum in support of the Motion. (“P Supp. Memo,” Dkt. No. 28), along with a second Declaration of Kevin S. Conlogue and attached exhibits 11 and 12 (Dkt. No. 28-1 and Dkt. Nos. 28-2 and 28-3). On April 13, 2021, the Court held a hearing on this Motion, following which the matter was taken under submission. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff?s request for sanctions is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff Dan Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. and Does 1-50 (“Defendants”)[1] seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries he sustained while he was a passenger aboard Defendant's vessel. The complaint alleges that on October 17, 2019, Plaintiff was in the fitness center and “began using the leg press machine in a foreseeable manner and as intended by Defendant when the weights crashed down on Plaintiff's hand fracturing his right thumb and causing other permanent physical and emotional injuries.” (Dkt. No. 1, Complaint at ¶ 9). Plaintiff asserts a claim of negligence as the leg press machine was “malfunctioning, defective and/or broken, and was dangerous for which Defendants failed to warn of said danger.” (Id.). Defendant denies liability and maintains that “an inspection of the leg press machine revealed no defect and that it was in the proper position.” (Dkt. No. 18, Joint Rule 26(f) Report, at 2). In the Motion, Plaintiff puts at issue Defendant's responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (Jt. Stip. at 1). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks information about the exact time of the last inspection of the leg press machine, information about other accidents in the fitness center during the five years prior to the subject incident “through today” onboard the Grand Princess, and lawsuits against Defendant for other accidents in the fitness center within the past five years. (Id.). Plaintiff states that Defendant has “promised further responses” for the exact time and approximate time of the last inspection of the machine, but has “not done so to date.” (Id.). With respect to requests for production of documents, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant has failed to produce documents regarding scheduled and completed inspections of the fitness center as of the date of the incident, and inspection logs of the leg press machine for one month before and one month after the incident. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's responses to requests for production of documents ambiguously assert that “there are no non-privileged responsive documents,” insinuating that there are responsive privileged documents which exist which Defendant has not produced. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff has also requested copies of Defendant's policies for responding to personal injury accidents. Plaintiff concedes that Defendant has produced policies, but maintains that they are “incomplete as they lack HMP-1302-A and HMP-1302-C.” (Id. at 2). Further, Plaintiff seeks incident reports concerning the incident, corrective action reports, and root analysis reports. Plaintiff maintains that there exists a “Sea Event Report” drafted on October 17, 2019 by CSO Darrell Patrick, bates number Princess000036-41, which Defendant refuses to produce, citing the attorney-client privilege. (See “Privilege Log” at Dkt. No. 25-7). Plaintiff seeks information about other accidents in the fitness center in the five years before the incident, documents of other injuries, claims for other injuries, and any lawsuits, but claims that Defendant unduly limited its responses to the leg press machine only. (Id.). Finally, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its attorney for failure to comply with Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production on the ground that a “discovery motion should not be required for this routine negligence maritime matter.” (Id. at 25–27). *2 Defendant maintains that the case is brought by a “60 year old passenger who fractured his thumb while attempting to adjust the weights on a leg press machine,” and that Plaintiff “is a life-long fitness enthusiast with experience using weight machines.” (Jt. Stip. at 3). Defendant maintains that Plaintiff “had used that machine or a similar machine each day he was on board the vessel” during the week-long cruise, and received medical care provided by the ship's doctor. (Id.). Defendant asserts that the discovery dispute has been reduced to one issue: Plaintiff's entitlement to discovery regarding prior fitness center accidents that do not involve the leg press machine. (Id. at 4). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's discovery demands are a “fishing expedition with an over broad net” into events which can “lend no insight as to why plaintiff (an experienced fitness enthusiast) injured himself.” (Id. at 4–5). Defendant states that Plaintiff's requests “belie a disproportionate approach to litigating a case with very limited damages.” (Id. at 5). Finally, Defendant maintains that it has produced a Sea Event report in full without any redactions (Pricesss000046-51), in the interest of compromise and to move the case to the merits. (Id.). At the hearing on the Motion, counsel for Defendant stated that she is in contact with her client and has made the requests for the documents which it has represented it would provide, and that she “should have the documents shortly.”[2] In his Supplemental Memorandum, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant produced some policies on March 5 and March 19, 2021 related to his request for production No. 40, and finally produced the Sea Event Report (RFP No. 41 requesting any and all incident reports), but still has not produced the Root Cause Analysis (RFP No. 43). (P Supp. Memo at 3). Plaintiff maintains that an order from the Court compelling production or further verified responses is required for all outstanding discovery disputes. II. DISCUSSION A. Interrogatories 1. Standard Rule 33 governs the use of interrogatories as a discovery device in federal courts. The purpose of interrogatories is “to facilitate trial preparation, to provide facts, to narrow the issues, and to reduce the chance of surprise.” Rickles, Inc. v. Frances Denney Corp., 508 F. Supp. 4, 7 n.1 (D. Mass. 1980); see also Citibank, N.A. v. Savage (In re Savage), 303 B.R. 766, 773 (Bankr. D. Md. 2003) (“The purpose of interrogatories is to allow the parties to prepare for trial and inform the parties what evidence they must meet.”); Essex Ins. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Safety Equip. Co./Interstate Fire & Safety Cleaning Co., 263 F.R.D. 72, 75 (D. Conn. 2009) (“One important purpose of interrogatories is to ‘obtain information necessary to use other discovery devices effectively, including identifying witnesses whose depositions should be taken ....’ ”) (quoting 7 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 33.03 (3d ed. 2004)). Overly broad and unduly burdensome interrogatories “are an abuse of the discovery process” and are routinely denied. See, e.g., Lucero v. Valdez, 240 F.R.D. 591, 594 (D. N.M. 2007) (interrogatories requiring responding party to state “each and every fact” supporting the party's contentions impermissibly overbroad); see also Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting generally that district courts “need not condone the use of discovery to engage in ‘fishing expedition[s]’ ”). At the same time, parties have “an obligation to construe ... discovery requests in a reasonable manner.” Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 618-19 (D. Colo. 2007). Accordingly, “[r]espondents should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized in interrogatories.” Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 310 (D. Kan. 1996); see also McCoo v. Denny's Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675, 694 (D. Kan. 2000) (“A party responding to discovery requests should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary definitions to terms and phrases utilized ....”) (internal quotation marks omitted); King-Hardy v. Bloomfield Board of Education, 2002 WL 32506294, at *5 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2002) (responding party must give discovery requests a reasonable construction, rather than strain to find ambiguity). *3 A responding party must respond to interrogatories under oath and to the fullest extent possible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). “The answers to interrogatories must be responsive, full, complete and unevasive.” Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 684 (D. Kan. 1991) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Chubb Integrated Systems Ltd. v. National Bank of Washington, 103 F.R.D. 52, 61 (D. D.C. 1984) (“We remind the parties that they have a duty to provide true, explicit, responsive, complete and candid answers to interrogatories.”). A party answering interrogatories cannot limit its answers to matters within its own knowledge and ignore information reasonably available to it or under its control. Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2005). While a responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research to answer an interrogatory, a reasonable effort to respond must be made. Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “If a party is unable to supply the requested information, the party may not simply refuse to answer, but must state under oath that he is unable to provide the information and set forth the efforts he used to obtain the information.” Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2. Interrogatory Responses in Dispute Interrogatory No. 3: State the exact time of the last inspection of the subject leg press machine before the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 3: The fitness center including the Leg Press and all gym equipment are under constant observation by the Spa staff. The last inspection of the fitness center and gym equipment occurred on 17 October 2019 per ship's protocol of daily visual inspections. The last HESS/Safety Round recorded before the date of the INCIDENT occurred on 8 September 2019. Interrogatory No. 4: State the approximate time of the last inspection of the subject leg press machine before the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 4: See response to the above interrogatory. (Jt. Stip. at 5–6). Plaintiff complains that Defendant's responses are non-responsive. (Jt. Stip. at 6). The Court agrees that Defendant's responses to Interrogatory No. 3 and No. 4 do not directly respond to Plaintiff's inquiries. Plaintiff's MTC is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories No. 3 and 4. Defendant must supplement its responses, as it agreed to do, by identifying the exact time and approximate time of the last inspection of the subject leg press machine before the incident occurred. Interrogatory No. 9: For the five years prior to and including the date of the INCIDENT, DESCRIBE (as used herein the term DESCRIBE means to (1) state the date the incident(s) occurred; (2) provide the name, address and telephone number of each individual(s) injured; and (3) state the alleged cause of the incident) each incident where an individual sustained injuries in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Response to Interrogatory No. 9: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents prior to the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 10: For the five years prior to and including the date of the INCIDENT, DESCRIBE each incident where an individual sustained injuries in the same fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS where Plaintiff alleges his injuries were sustained. *4 Response to Interrogatory No. 10: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents within five years before the date of the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 11: DESCRIBE each incident where an individual sustained injuries in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS after the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 11: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents after the date of the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 12: DESCRIBE each incident where an individual sustained injuries in the same fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS where Plaintiff alleges his injuries were sustained, after the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 12: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents after the date of the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 13: DESCRIBE all claims made against DEFENDANT (as used herein the term “DEFENDANT” refers to Defendant PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD.) for all injuries sustained in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS for the five years prior to the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 13: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents within five years before the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 14: DESCRIBE all lawsuits made against DEFENDANT for all injuries sustained in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS for the five years prior to the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 14: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents within five years before the date of the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. *5 Interrogatory No. 15: DESCRIBE all claims made against DEFENDANT for all injuries sustained in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS after the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 15: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents after the date of the INCIDENT where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 16: DESCRIBE all lawsuits made against DEFENDANT for all injuries sustained in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS after the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Interrogatory No. 16: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no reported incidents where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Interrogatory No. 17: State the number of lawsuits filed against DEFENDANT within the last (5) years as a result of all injuries sustained in a fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS by listing the court case number for each lawsuit. Response to Interrogatory No. 17: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory also seeks to violate the right of third parties to keep private their personal information. Without waiving these objections, responding party responds with reference to Leg Press Machines which the plaintiff reported he was using at the time of the INCIDENT: There are no other lawsuits other than this where a passenger sustained injury while attempting to use a Leg Press machine in the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. (Jt. Stip. at 6–9). Plaintiff complains that Defendant's responses are improperly limited to the leg press machine only, and not the fitness center onboard the Grand Princess as requested. Plaintiff argues that under similar circumstances, prior and subsequent accidents may be used to show a defective or dangerous condition, knowledge or notice, or establish the cause of an accident or negligence in permitting that condition to continue. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff claims that Defendant likely had no system in place to inspect its fitness center, and the failure of such proper inspection serves as the basis for Plaintiff's negligence claim here. With regard to the privacy rights of third parties, Plaintiff asserts that privacy rights are waived when a lawsuit is filed, and for unfiled claims, a protective order may be entered into or the information redacted. *6 Defendant contends that relevant federal authorities, as opposed to the state discovery cases cited by Plaintiff, support Defendant's position because Plaintiff's demand for information about five years of prior accidents has nothing to do with the leg press machine involved in this accident, and is neither tailored nor proportional. Defendant argues that in this Court, only “substantially similar” accidents are relevant to show notice in a premises negligence case. (Id. at 11–12) (citing Ayala v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 178850 at *8 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (Summary Judgment granted to the defendant)). Moreover, Defendant asserts that prior accident discovery is denied in federal courts when the Plaintiff is unable to make a showing that the discovery is relevant to the claim. (Jt. Stip. at 12). Further, these fair and proportional discovery principles apply to cruise ship passenger injury cases. (Id.). Regarding Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's Responses to interrogatories 9-17 are inadequate because they are limited to the leg press machine and not the entirety of the fitness center onboard the Grand Princess, the Court agrees with Defendant that this request is overbroad. However, the Court finds that injuries sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines are relevant. As such, Defendants are ordered to provide supplement responses to the above interrogatories, providing responses that encompass injuries sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines. With respect to interrogatory 15, which seeks information regarding claims, the Court finds that the request for claims against Defendant for injuries sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines is proper, and orders Defendant to supplement its response accordingly. Interrogatories 16 and 17, which seek information about lawsuits filed against defendant after the date of the incident, are also proper, limited to lawsuits in the fitness center that involved the use of exercise machines, and a supplemental response is ordered. With respect to the temporal period covered by Interrogatories 9–17, the Court finds that five years before the incident is too broad a time period to target any relevant evidence of knowledge or notice on the part of Defendant in permitting a condition to continue or to show Defendant's negligence. The Court finds that a two year period before the incident is proper, and orders that further responses to Interrogatories 9, 10, 13, and 14 be limited to a two-year time period before the incident. With respect to interrogatories 11 and 12, which seek responses to events that occurred after the incident up to the present, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated how post-injury accidents would provide notice to Defendant of problems with an exercise machine that Plaintiff claims caused his injuries. For this reason, further responses to Interrogatories 11 and 12 are DENIED. The Court finds that the time period in Interrogatory 17, requesting information about lawsuits filed in the last five years, as a result of injuries sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines, to be proper, and orders a supplemental response. Accordingly, Plaintiff's MTC with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 9–17 is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART, and the Court orders supplemental responses by Defendant consistent with the above. B. Requests for Production of Documents 1. Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires production of documents “in the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Upon receipt of a properly served request, a responding party is required to conduct a “reasonable search” for responsive documents. See Hock Foods, Inc. v. William Blair & Co., L.L.C., 2011 WL 884446 at *8 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2011); Jackson v. Woodford, 2007 WL 2238363 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2007) (requiring defendants to conduct a reasonable search for documents responsive to requests for production); A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 189 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (a party has an “affirmative duty” to seek information “reasonably available” to it in responding to discovery requests) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “while parties must impose a reasonable construction on discovery requests and conduct a reasonable search when responding to the requests, the Federal Rules do not demand perfection.” Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 604, 615 (C.D. Cal. 2013); Prasad v. George Washington Univ., 323 F.R.D. 88, 93 (D. D.C. 2017) (quoting Reinsdorf); see also Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC, 2017 WL 933095, at *5 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017) (“The standard for evaluating discovery is reasonableness, not perfection.”) (collecting cases). *7 Furthermore, even though a responding party has an affirmative duty to search for responsive documents, the court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist. A mere suspicion that additional documents must exist is an insufficient basis to grant a motion to compel. See, e.g., Bethea v. Comcast, 218 F.R.D. 328, 329 (D. D.C. 2003) (requesting party's suspicion that responding party failed to produce responsive documents does not justify compelled inspection); Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 194 F.R.D. 305, 311 (D. D.C. 2000) (a party's mere suspicion that its opponent must have documents that it claims not to have does not warrant granting a motion to compel). Rather, the moving party must have a colorable basis for its belief that relevant, responsive documents exist and are being improperly withheld. See Carter v. Dawson, 2010 WL 4483814, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010) (defendants' assertion that they are unable to locate responsive documents does not provide a ground for granting a motion to compel “unless Plaintiff can identify a specific document that Defendants have withheld”); Ayala v. Tapia, 1991 WL 241873, at *2 (D. D.C. Nov. 1, 1991) (denying motion to compel where moving party could not identify documents that were withheld). 2. Requests for Production in Dispute Request for Production No. 18: All DOCUMENTS that evidence any inspections of the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS scheduled to be done on the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 18: Objection. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: After having conducted a diligent search, there are no non-privileged responsive documents within Defendant's custody or control. Request for Production No. 19: All DOCUMENTS that evidence any inspections of the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS completed on the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 19: Objection. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: After having conducted a diligent search, there are no non-privileged responsive documents within Defendant's custody or control. Request for Production No. 37: Originals or true and correct copies of all “Inspection Logs” or similar documents which record and/or schedule any inspection of the leg press machine that allegedly sustained Plaintiff's injuries onboard the GRAND PRINCESS for the one month prior to the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 37: Objection. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: After having conducted a diligent search, there are no non-privileged responsive documents within Defendant's custody or control. Request for Production No. 38: Originals or true and correct copies of all “Inspection Logs” or similar documents which record and/or schedule any inspection of the leg press machine that allegedly sustained Plaintiff's injuries onboard the GRAND PRINCESS on the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 38: Objection. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: After having conducted a diligent search, there are no non-privileged responsive documents within Defendant's custody or control. Request for Production No. 39: Originals or true and correct copies of all “Inspection Logs” or similar documents which record and/or schedule any inspection of the leg press machine that allegedly sustained Plaintiff's injuries onboard the GRAND PRINCESS for one month after the date of the INCIDENT. *8 Response to Request for Production No. 39: Objection. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: After having conducted a diligent search, there are no non-privileged responsive documents within Defendant's custody or control. (Jt. Stip. at 12–14). Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's responses providing that “there are no non-privileged responsive documents” suggest that privileged documents are being withheld. (Id. at 14). Plaintiff seeks further responses with the qualifying language taken out. Plaintiff contends that these requests are relevant because Defendant's failure to inspect contributed to Defendant's negligence, which would be a foreseeable and proximate cause of Plaintiff's accident. Defendant agrees to supplement its responses. As an initial matter, Requests for Production Nos. 18 and 19 seek documents related to the inspections of the “fitness centers” onboard the Grand Princess. The Court finds that these requests are overbroad, and finds that the relevant inquiry is inspections of exercise machines in the fitness center, as Plaintiff was injured by a leg press machine. Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Numbers 18–19 and 37–39 all state that there are no “non-privileged” documents within Defendant's custody or control, which renders the response ambiguous because it suggests that privileged documents may exist and are being withheld. However, Defendant's privilege log lists only one document, the October 17, 2019 “Sea Event Report.” (See Exhibit 6). Because Defendant has failed to assert any privilege, should one exist, which may apply to the documents, Defendant is ordered either (1) to supplement its response to these requests for production to delete any reference to a privilege, (2) to provide any previously withheld documents sought in these requests, or (3) if Defendant maintains that a privilege applies to any given document, to serve a supplemental privilege log identifying the document(s), indicating what privilege applies, and the ground(s) for the privilege. Consistent with the above, Plaintiff's MTC with respect to Request for Production Nos. 18–19 and 37–39 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff must supplement its response to Production Nos. 18–19 and 37–39 or produce the requested documents consistent with the above. Request for Production No. 40: All DOCUMENTS setting forth any and all of DEFENDANT'S policies, procedures and guidelines for responding to a personal injury onboard the GRAND PRINCESS in effect on the date of the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 40: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Jt. Stip. at 14–15). Plaintiff maintains that while Defendant agreed to produce the policies after the informal conference, and supplemented some policy documents on March 5, 2021, Defendant did not produce HMP-1302-A Internal HESS Incident Analysis Matrix and HMP-1302-C High Potential Worksheet—which would allow the Court and Plaintiff to determine how Defendant classified Plaintiff's accident so that the appropriate procedure may be determined. (Id. at 15). Defendant contends that it provided HMP1302 (Jan. 2017), which was in effect on the date of Plaintiff's accident, along with HMP1302-A (Internal Accident Matrix) (Princess 000042-45). Defendant maintains that HMP1302-C (High Potential Worksheet) was not in effect on the date of the accident as it relates to near-miss incidents and therefore, has no relevance to Plaintiff's claim and is not subject to discovery under FRCP 26. *9 Plaintiff's request for a Health, Environment, Safety and Security (“HESS”) document related to a “near-miss” event, defined as an event or situation that could have resulted in a HESS event, but did not, either by chance, through timely intervention or because preventative measures were in place, and for HMP-1302-C High Potential Worksheet, a policy which was not in effect on the date of the incident and relates to a “near-miss” event (which appears to be a single document), is DENIED as to this policy only as the Court finds it to be not relevant. However, to the extent that there exist any other policies, procedures, or guidelines which were in place at the time of the incident for responding to a personal injury onboard the Grand Princess, the Court finds such documents relevant and discoverable, and orders their production. For this reason, Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 40 is GRANTED IN PART, consistent with the above. Defendant is ordered to either (1) supplement its response to this request for production to delete any reference to a privilege, or (2) provide any previously withheld documents sought in this request, or (3) if Defendant maintains that a privilege applies to any given document, serve a supplemental privilege log identifying the document(s), indicating what privilege applies, and the ground(s) for the privilege. Request for Production No. 41: Any Incident Reports from the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 41: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. Please see Passenger Statement of Accident attached. Request for Production No. 42: Any Corrective Action Reports from the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 42: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has identified no Corrective Action Reports from the INCIDENT within its possession, custody or control. Request for Production No. 43: Any Root Cause Analysis Reports from the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 43: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has identified no Root Cause Analysis Reports from the INCIDENT within its possession, custody or control. (Jt. Stip. at 15–16). Plaintiff states that Defendant has indicated there are no Corrective Action Reports or Root Cause Analysis Report. (Id. at 16). The only document being withheld is a six-page “Sea Event Report” drafted on October 17, 2019 by CSO Darrell Patrick, with a subject title of “Guest—Fracture—Gym—B724”—a routine report drafted by a crewmember of Defendant on the date of the incident upon inspection of the leg press machine after Plaintiff's accident. (Id. at 16). This document is identified in Defendant's privilege log as Bates number Princess0000036-41. (See Dkt. No. 25-7). Plaintiff maintains that he was unable to inspect the leg press machine following the incident while he was in the infirmary. (MTC at 16). Although Defendant claims attorney-client and work product privilege apply, Plaintiff states that because there is no communication here with a lawyer, the attorney-client privilege is inapplicable. (Id. at 17). Moreover, Plaintiff argues that even assuming the Sea Event Report is work product, which Plaintiff contends it is not, courts have held that good cause exists to disclose information in such reports obtained shortly after an incident by a vessel's crew when the information is fresh. (Id. at 17) (citing Redfern v. American President Lines, Ltd., 228 F. Supp. 227, 231 (N.D. Cal. 1963) (“We believe that this inequality of opportunity to ascertain the facts should ordinarily outweigh any element of inconvenience or unfairness to the more advantaged party.”). *10 In response, Defendant cites to case authority applicable to cruise passengers which holds that incident reports generated by a ship's crew in response to a passenger accident are privileged when prepared in anticipation of litigation. (Id. at 17-18). Defendant claims that although privileges do apply in this case, it elected to produce the Sea Event Report in full without redactions (Princess000046-51). Defendant maintains that disclosure was made in the interest of compromise and a desire to move to the merits of the claim, but does not constitute a waiver as to any other reports. Moreover, Defendant previously produced the passenger statement of accident (completed by Leasa Trujillo and signed by the Plaintiff) along with photographs taken in the course of the ship's investigation providing the Plaintiff with factual information gathered. (Id. at 18). As an initial matter, the Court finds that incident reports in Defendant's possession which were generated as a result of the incident and contain factual assertions regarding the inspection of the leg press machine, the state of the machine, its operability, and any defects or malfunctions are relevant and should be produced to Plaintiff. In Dowling v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423, (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit held that pre-accident safety reviews were not protected by the privilege of self-critical analysis, reversing the district court's finding and remanding the case for a new trial. In Redfern, the district court found that the factual content of post-accident investigative reports were discoverable, but allowed defendant to “delete from such items any content which is not factual or descriptive, e.g., opinions, conclusions, and speculations,” with the Court reserving the power to order such deleted matter filed for identification for the purpose of examination in camera. See Redfern at 232. Here, Defendant has identified a single document which has been withheld, Princess0000036-41. This document at issue was created on the date of the incident. To the extent that this document, identified in Defendant's privilege log, details factual information about the incident, inspection of the leg press machine and its operability, including any defects or malfunctions, the Court orders its production. See Redfern, 228 F. Supp. at 231-32; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (authorizing discovery of “ordinary work product,” i.e. raw factual information, if the party seeking the discovery demonstrates a “substantial need” for the materials and there is no other means for obtaining that information without undue hardship); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981) (the attorney-client privilege protects only communications, not underlying facts). Defendant may redact any information from that report which is not factual or descriptive in nature. Plaintiff's MTC with respect to Request for Production No. 41 is GRANTED IN PART. The requests for further responses to RFP Nos. 42 and 43 are DENIED. Request for Production No. 44: All DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of injuries sustained in the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS in the five (5) years prior to this INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 44: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents reporting injuries sustained by passengers attempting to use a Leg Press machine onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Request for Production No. 45: All DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of injuries sustained in the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS since this INCIDENT, including this INCIDENT. *11 Response to Request for Production No. 45: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents reporting injuries sustained by passengers other than plaintiff attempting to use a Leg Press machine onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Request for Production No. 46: All DOCUMENTS concerning any claims against DEFENDANT for injuries sustained in the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS from the five years prior to this INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 46: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents regarding claims by anyone other than the Plaintiff reporting injuries sustained by passengers attempting to use a Leg Press machine onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Request for Production No. 47: All DOCUMENTS concerning any claims against DEFENDANT for injuries sustained in the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS since this INCIDENT, including this INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 47: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents regarding claims by anyone other than the Plaintiff reporting injuries sustained by passengers attempting to use a Leg Press machine onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Request for Production No. 48: All DOCUMENTS concerning any lawsuits against DEFENDANT for injuries sustained in the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS from the five years prior to this INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 48: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents regarding lawsuits by anyone other than the Plaintiff reporting injuries sustained by passengers attempting to use a Leg Press machine onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. Request for Production No. 49: All DOCUMENTS concerning any lawsuits against DEFENDANT for injuries sustained in the fitness centers onboard the GRAND PRINCESS since this INCIDENT, including this INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 49: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request also seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no non-privileged documents regarding lawsuits by anyone other than the Plaintiff reporting injuries sustained by passengers attempting to use a Leg Press machine onboard the GRAND PRINCESS. *12 (Jt. Stip. at 18–20). Plaintiff contends that Defendant's responses are improperly limited to the leg press machine only, and not the fitness center onboard the GRAND PRINCESS as requested. Similar to the arguments raised above, Plaintiff claims that the documents sought are calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible and relevant evidence, and that Defendant likely had no system to inspect its fitness equipment. Additionally, Plaintiff cites to a state case, Dyas v. Southern Pacific Company, 140 Cal. 296, 304–05 (1903), which permitted evidence of a similar accident on a derrick over five years before the subject incident to be presented to a jury at trial. (Id. at 21). Plaintiff claims that similarly, documents concerning accidents from five years prior are discoverable. With regard to Defendant's claims of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, no documents have been identified other than Sea Event Report discussed within. Defendant responds, as it did in connection with its disputed interrogatory responses, that Plaintiff cites only to discovery cases decided in state court while ignoring federal decisions that apply specifically to passenger injuries on board cruise ships. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's demand for documents concerning five years of prior accidents are not relevant or “substantially similar” to the Leg Press machine accident involved in this case. As already articulated, the Court will limit RFP Nos. 44 and 46 to two years before the incident, and will likewise limit RFP Nos. 44–49 to injuries sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines. With respect to RFP No. 46, the Court finds that documents related to any claims sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines two years prior to the incident are relevant, and responding documents are ordered produced. Similarly, any documents in Defendant's possession concerning any claims or lawsuits as a result of injuries sustained in the fitness center which involved the use of exercise machines, as requested in RFP Nos. 47 to 49, are ordered produced. Accordingly, Plaintiff's MTC with respect to Request for Production Nos. 44–49 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff must supplement its response to Production Nos. 44–49 or produce the requested documents consistent with the above. In all other respects, the MTC is DENIED. Request for Production No. 50: All DOCUMENTS between YOU and any PERSON regarding the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 50: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Other than pleadings, discovery and correspondence exchanged between counsel in this action, the only non-privileged responsive document exchanged between defendant and any other person regarding the incident is attached hereto. *13 Request for Production No. 51: All DOCUMENTS between YOU and any agency within the State of California regarding the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 51: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents in its possession, custody or control. Request for Production No. 52: All DOCUMENTS between YOU and any federal agency regarding the INCIDENT. Response to Request for Production No. 52: Objection. The request seeks material that is subject to the attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege. The request is overbroad and seeks material that is neither relevant to the issues nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, responding defendant responds as follows: Responding defendant has conducted a diligent search and has no documents in its possession, custody or control. (Jt. Stip. at 24–25). Plaintiff states that it is not clear from Defendant's responses whether documents are being withheld because even though Defendant has indicated further responses would be provided, no further responses have been provided as of March 15, 2021. Defendant agrees to provide supplemental responses and claims no documents were withheld. Plaintiff's request related to RFP No. 50, “all documents between you and any person regarding the incident,” is DENIED as the Court finds that request to be vague and overbroad. The Court finds RFP Nos. 51 and 52 to be relevant, and GRANTS the MTC as to these requests. To the extent that Defendant asserts that any privilege applies to these documents, Defendant is ordered to either (1) supplement its response to this request for production to delete any reference to a privilege, or (2) provide any previously withheld documents sought in this request, or (3) if Defendant maintains that a privilege applies to any given document, serve a supplemental privilege log identifying the document(s), indicating what privilege applies, and the ground(s) for the privilege. For all these reasons, Plaintiff's MTC supplemental responses to his interrogatories and requests for production of documents is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant is ORDERED to serve, within fourteen days of the date of this order, supplemental written responses and documents, if any. III. SANCTIONS REQUESTS A. Request for Rule 37 Sanctions Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred in bringing this motion as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (Jt. Stip. at 25–27). Rule 37 provides in relevant part: If the [discovery motion] is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising the conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. *14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Conversely, if the discovery motion is denied, the court must require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in opposing the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Finally, if the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). However, if the non-prevailing party can demonstrate “substantial justification” for its motion, nondisclosure, or opposition, Rule 37 provides that the court must deny sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii). “There is no bright line standard for ‘substantial justification,’ and courts must use discretion when deciding whether opposition to a motion to compel is substantially justified.” Brown v. State of Iowa, 152 F.R.D. 168, 173 (S.D. Iowa 1993). “[C]ourts have generally focused on ‘the quality of the justification and the genuineness of the dispute [and whether] an impartial observer would agree that a party had good reason to withhold discovery[ ]’ when determining whether opposition is substantially justified.” Id. (quoting Alvarez v. Wallace, 107 F.R.D. 658, 662 (W.D. Tex. 1985)). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions for Defendant's failure to provide complete responses to his Interrogatories and Request for Production, claiming that the discovery process has been abused in bad faith for the purpose of frustrating legitimate discovery, and that if Defendant had been acting in good faith, further responses would already have been produced where Defendant previously agreed to provide further responses. Defendant argues that sanctions are unjustified in light of its good faith effort to meet and confer, including the offer of compromise which was rejected without a counteroffer. Defendant argues that substantial case law supports its position that Plaintiff's discovery is overbroad, irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action, and seeks disclosure of protected information. Here, while the majority of Plaintiff's requests for further responses to the interrogatories and requests for production were granted by the Court, there were some requests which were denied, or modified. For this reason, the Court cannot conclude that there was no “substantial justification” for opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted under Rule 37, and Plaintiff's Motion for sanctions is DENIED. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall produce supplemental responses and documents as required by this order within fourteen days of the date of this order. The Motion for sanctions is DENIED. Footnotes [1] Hereinafter, the Court will utilize the singular “Defendant” as it relates to Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. [2] In his initial filing and Supplemental Memo, Plaintiff questions “how long must [he] wait for responses to requests served on December 11, 2020?” (Supp. Memo at 2–5).