JOE ORTIZ v. MARLU RESTAURANT GROUP et al Case No. SA CV 14-01790-DOC (DFMx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed August 24, 2016 Counsel Nancy Boehme, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: n/a n/a, Court Reporter / Recorder, Attorneys Present for Defendants: n/a McCormick, Douglas F., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery (Dkt. 77) *1 Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to discovery from Defendants. See Dkt. 77. After Plaintiff's motion was filed, the parties engaged in further discussions to narrow the scope of Plaintiff's motion. See Dkt. 79. Those discussions led to Defendants' agreement to provide supplemental responses and further productions of documents to several of the written discovery requests contained in Plaintiff's motion. See id. The parties also agreed that Defendants would provide a sample of paper time records. See id. The parties' agreement narrowed the scope of Plaintiff's motion to RFP Nos. 1-13 and Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17. See id. On the merits of those discovery requests, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants waived their objections based on California's tax-return privilege or Defendants' right to privacy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.”); Ramirez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 410 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (finding waiver of objections not asserted in responding party's discovery responses but raised for the first time in motion papers). But Defendants have consistently asserted that RFP Nos. 1-13 and Interrogatory No. 16 and 17 seeks discovery unrelated to class certification and is thus premature at this stage of the case. This Court has previously held that several proposed Rule 30(b)(6) topics identified by Plaintiff were likely to produce substantiation of Plaintiff's class allegations and accordingly ordered Defendants to produce deponents on those topics. See Dkt. 72. Plaintiff sees no reason why this same rationale should not apply to RFP Nos. 1-13 and Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17 and urge this Court to affirm its prior ruling that “pre-certification discovery on whether Defendants are joint employers is proper.” See Dkt. 81 at 10. The Court does not remember saying that, and a close reading of its May 2 order contains no such statement. What the Court's prior order concluded was that the Rule 30(b)(6) topics propounded by Plaintiff seemed likely to substantiate Plaintiff's class allegations. As the Court previously noted, the scope of pre-certification discovery must balance Plaintiff's need for discovery to substantiate his class allegations against the need to protect Defendants from overly burdensome discovery requests that are nothing more than blind shots in the dark aiming at highly speculative claims. See Dkt. 72 at 1-2. The Court must also ensure that Plaintiff's requests are “relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). With those concerns in mind, the Court turns to the individual interrogatories and RFPs that are the subject of Plaintiff's motion: Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17. Plaintiff claims that the various Defendants are a “single enterprise” that “operate jointly.” The Court finds that whether Defendants have common banking practices is relevant to Plaintiff's claim. Defendants are accordingly ORDERED to provide a further supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 16 and 17 by no later than September 9, 2016. *2 Plaintiff's motion is also GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 1-3. These RFPs are limited to financial transactions between Defendants or those with ownership interest in any Defendant. As such, the Court finds those financial transactions are relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants are a “single enterprise” that “operate jointly.” Defendants are ORDERED to produce responsive documents by no later than September 9, 2016.[1] Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 4-6. The Court finds that production of all bank records by any bank that processed financial transactions between Defendants or those with ownership interest in any Defendant is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this pre-certification stage. Plaintiff's motion is also DENIED as to RFP Nos. 7 and 8. The Court sees nothing in the record to indicate that tax returns or tax reports will show anything meaningful about about Plaintiff's claim of single enterprise or joint operation. Finally, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 9-13. Whether Defendants adhered to corporate formalities is relevant to Plaintiff's single enterprise claim. Defendants are ORDERED to produce responsive documents by no later than September 9, 2016. Plaintiff argues that sanctions are warranted on the issues resolved by the parties' post-filing stipulation to limit the scope of Plaintiff's motion because Defendants agreed to provide the requested discovery after the motion was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (“[I] the ... requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed—the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.”). But as the Court noted above, at least a portion of that agreement involved a compromise concerning the production of a sample. That compromise, plus the fact that the Court denied the remaining portion of Plaintiff's motion in part, leaves the Court to conclude that sanctions are not warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). ______ : ______ Initials of Clerk nkb Footnotes [1] During the oral argument on this motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff's request for “[a]ll documents” was overbroad and suggested that it be ordered to produce a narrower scope of documents. The Court declines to do so, but ORDERS the parties to meet-and-confer within three (3) business days of Defendants' document production to discuss the adequacy of that production. If the parties' efforts to resolve any remaining dispute about that production are unsuccessful, the parties are directed to utilize the Court's informal telephonic hearing procedure to schedule an immediate telephonic hearing with the Court.