Ecological Rights Foundation, et al. v. Hot Line Construction, Inc Case No. EDCV 20-1108-AB (KKx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed July 27, 2022 Kato, Kenly Kiya, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Dkt. 161]; (2) DENYING without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Subpoena [Dkt. 164]; and (3) DENYING as MOOT Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena [Dkt. 166] *1 On June 16, 2022, plaintiffs Ecological Rights Foundation and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion to Compel seeking (1) supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission from defendant Hot Line Construction, Inc. (“Hot Line”); (2) supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, and Fourth Sets of Requests for Production of Documents from Hot Line; and (3) to have Hot Line “adequately prepare a witness to testify in response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition with respect to Topic Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 20 (“Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 161. On June 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief withdrawing the Motion to Compel to the extent it sought supplemental responses to (1) Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 1-7, 14, 16, 25-28, 32, 33, 37-40, 44-48, and 58-62; (2) Plaintiffs' First and Second Sets of Requests for Production of Documents; and (3) Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-4. Dkt. 165. On June 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel further responses to a subpoena they served on Aspen Specialty Insurance Company (“Aspen”) (the “Aspen Subpoena”), dkt. 164, and Hot Line filed a Motion to Quash the Aspen Subpoena, dkt. 166. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Aspen to provide further responses is DENIED without prejudice; and Hot Line's Motion to Quash the Aspen Subpoena is DENIED as MOOT. I. BACKGROUND On May 29, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Hot Line for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). Dkt. 1. On June 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against Hot Line and Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) for alleged violations of the CWA and RCRA. Dkt. 10. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 19. The sole remaining claim in the SAC is for Hot Line's alleged violations of RCRA.[1] On September 23, 2020, Hot Line filed an Answer to the SAC. Dkt. 21. On January 28, 2022, the Court set a fact discovery cut-off for May 2, 2022. Dkt. 128. On March 14, 2022, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Deposition on Hot Line pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (“Rule 30(b)(6)”). Dkt. 161-2, Declaration of Brian Orion (“Orion MTC Decl.”), ¶ 11. *2 On March 23, 2022, Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production on Hot Line seeking “documents on storm water pollution prevention measures that Hot Line has undertaken at the facility, including information concerning the costs of such measures, and documents concerning the presence of contaminants at the facility.” Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 6. On April 1, 2022, Plaintiffs served a subpoena for production of documents on Aspen (the Aspen Subpoena). Dkt. 162-3, Declaration of Brian Orion (“Orion Subpoena Decl.”), ¶ 2, Ex. 1. On April 14, 2022, Plaintiffs took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Hot Line pursuant to the deposition notice. Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 11. However, since neither of the witnesses who were designated to testify by Hot Line were prepared to testify on the topics in the deposition notice, Hot Line agreed to permit Plaintiffs to re-take the deposition. Id. However, despite meet-and-confer efforts the parties have not been able to agree on the scope of Topic Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 20. Id. On April 29, 2022, Hot Line served responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production. Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 6. On May 2, 2022, Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission and a Fourth Set of Requests for Production on Hot Line. Orion MTC Decl., ¶¶ 2, 10. On May 20, 2022, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order continuing the discovery cut-off to July 29, 2022. Dkt. 160. On June 1, 2022, Hot Line served initial responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission and Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Requests for Production. Orion MTC Decl., ¶¶ 2, 10. In response to each Request for Admission Nos. 4-43, Hot Line objected: “Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for premature expert testimony and asks Defendant for information outside of its personal knowledge.” MTC JS at 5-14. In response to each Request for Admission Nos. 44-62, Hot Line objected: “Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome.” MTC JS at 17-21. On June 10, 2022, the parties met and conferred regarding the Aspen Subpoena and Hot Lines responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission and Third and Fourth Sets of Requests for Production. Orion Subpoena Decl., ¶ 4; Dkt. 161 at 1-2. Hot Line's counsel represented that, despite a coverage letter from Aspen stating AIG is participating in the defense of Hot Line by sharing defense costs 50/50, AIG is not providing such payment. Orion Subpoena Decl., ¶ 4. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes. On June 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel with a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-2. Dkt. 161, Mot.; Dkt. 161-1 (“MTC JS”). On June 16, 2022, Hot Line served supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission. Dkt. 165-1, Declaration of Brian Orion (“Orion Suppl. Decl.”), ¶ 2. Hot Line supplemented its responses as follows: (1) providing admissions or denials with respect to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-7, 14, 16, 25-28, 32-33, 37-40, 44-48, and 58-62; (2) providing no new responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 8-9, 13, 15, 20-21, 34-36, 51-52, and 55; and (3) responding subject to its previous objections, “Defendant lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny in response to this Request” for Requests for Admission Nos. 10-12, 14, 16, 22-24, 53, and 56-57. Id., ¶¶ 4-6. *3 On June 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of the Motion to Compel indicating they are withdrawing certain portions of the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 165. Accordingly, the following issues remain in dispute: (1) Hot Line's responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8-16, 20-24, 34-36, and 51-57; (2) Hot Line's responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production Nos. 5-27; (3) Hot Line's responses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Requests for Production; and (4) the appropriate scope of deposition Topics Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 20. On June 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel further response to the Aspen Subpoena, dkt. 164, with a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-2, dkt. 164-1 (“Subpoena JS”), and Hot Line filed a Motion to Quash the Aspen Subpoena, dkt. 166. The matters thus stand submitted. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery regarding: any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). “[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper–especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections.” A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citations omitted) (faulting defendant for making “boilerplate objections to almost every single request for production, including broad relevancy objections, objections of ‘overly burdensome and harassing,’ ‘assumes facts not in evidence,’ privacy, and attorney-client privilege/work product protection”). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... production, or inspection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4). Moreover, the parties have a “shared responsibility ... to consider the factors bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., No. 14-CV-02096-RS (MEJ), 2016 WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016). “[J]ust as the court should construe and administer these rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, so the parties share the responsibility to employ the rules in the same way.... Effective advocacy is consistent with -- and indeed depends upon -- cooperative and proportional use of procedure.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1 advisory committee notes (2015 amendments). III. DISCUSSION A. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. Applicable Law *4 “A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides: If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4). 2. Analysis a. Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8-16, 20-24, 34-36, 53, 54, 56, and 57 Here, Hot Line served boilerplate objections to each of Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission. Even after supplemental responses, each of Hot Line's responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8-16, 20-24, 34-36, 53, 54, 56, and 57 either object because the information is “outside of [Hot Line's] personal knowledge” or respond that Hot Line “lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny” the request. Neither of these responses complies with Rule 36, which permits such a response “only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4) (emphasis added). Hence, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8-16, 20-24, 34-36, 53, 54, 56, and 57 is GRANTED. Accordingly, no later than July 29, 2022, Hot Line shall serve supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8-16, 20-24, 34-36, 53, 54, 56, and 57 that comply with Rule 36. b. Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 51, 52, 55 Request for Admission No. 51 states: “Please admit that the UTILITY POLES YOU stored at the SACRAMENTO FACILITY were treated with pentachlorophenol.” MTC JS at 19. Request for Admission No. 52 states: “Please admit that the [treated wood waste] YOU stored at the SACRAMENTO FACILITY was treated with pentachlorophenol.” Id. Request for Admission No. 55 states: “Please admit that the pentachlorophenol mixtures used to treat UTILITY POLES YOU stored at the SACRAMENTO FACILITY contain DIOXINS.” Id. at 20. In response to each Request for Admission Nos. 51, 52, and 55, Hot Line responded: “Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad as to time, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome.” Id. at 19-20. In Hot Line's portion of the Joint Stipulation, Hot Line explains: “The Materials Safety Data Sheets suggest that, at the very least, the new poles do not contain the dioxins Plaintiffs are concerned about. With respect to the poles Hot Line is replacing—the TWW, as Plaintiffs term it—Hot Line has no information as to the treatment of those older poles.” Id. at 22. Hot Line argues it should not be required to “seek out third party information regarding the contents of those poles.” Id. *5 Here, Hot Line fails to support its objections that the requests are overbroad as to time, vague, ambiguous, or unduly burdensome. Accordingly, the boilerplate objections are OVERRULED. A. Farber & Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 188. Pursuant to Rule 36, Hot Line's obligation is to make a “reasonable inquiry.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4). Plaintiffs argue the “information should be readily obtainable from Hot Line's own records.” MTC JS at 22. However, Hot Line argues it “flatly does not have the answers.” Id. Based on Hot Line's argument in the Joint Stipulation, it appears to have at least some information concerning the “new poles.” Hence, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 51, 52, and 55 is GRANTED. Accordingly, no later than July 29, 2022, Hot Line shall serve supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 51, 52, and 55 that comply with Rule 36. B. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Applicable Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (“Rule 34”) governs requests for production of documents. FED. R. CIV. P. 34. A party may request documents “in the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1). The responding “must respond in writing within 30 days after being served” and is obligated to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b). Alternatively, a party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B). 2. Analysis Here, Hot Line has agreed to serve supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Third and Fourth Sets of Requests for Production. MTC JS at 27-28. Hence, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production Nos. 5-27 and Fourth Set of Requests for Production is GRANTED.[2] C. RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION TOPICS 1. Applicable Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 (“Rule 30”) governs depositions by oral examination. See FED. R. CIV. P. 30. Rule 30(a)(1) provides that, subject to certain limitations, “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court ....” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(1). In turn, Rule 30(b)(6) provides that: In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. Before or promptly after the notice or subpoena is served, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the matters for examination. FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6). Once served with the deposition notice under Rule 30(b)(6), the responding party is required to produce one or more witnesses knowledgeable about the subject matter of the noticed topics. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 538 (D. Nev. 2008). The responding party has “a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.” Id. at 539 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). *6 The “effectiveness of [Rule 30(b)(6)] bears heavily upon the parties' reciprocal obligations” to identify topics with particularity and prepare witnesses in good faith. DarbeeVision, Inc. v. C&A Mktg., Inc., No. CV 18-0725 AG (SSx), 2019 WL 2902697, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019) (quoting Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 4642618, at *5 (D. Kan. Oct. 16, 2008)). “[I]t is simply impractical to expect Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to know the intimate details of everything.” Id. (citing Dealer Computer Servs., Inc. v. Curry, 2013 WL 499520, at *2 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 7, 2013) (“A [Rule 30(b)(6)] deposition is not a quiz, nor is it the most practical way to obtain [all types of] information.”)). In addition, Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses are not required to provide expert testimony, but “must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6). Courts have also disallowed Rule 30(b)(6) testimony where the information sought is more properly within the purview of expert testimony. DarbeeVision, Inc., 2019 WL 2902697, at *7 (citing Sierra Club, et al. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2016 WL 4528452, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2016) (disallowing 30(b)(6) deposition about the factual bases of allegations in plaintiff's complaint where plaintiff had already submitted expert reports on the matter and “the underlying factual information ha[d] already been disclosed”); Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., 2014 WL 5786492, at *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2014) (“A party may properly resist a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on grounds that the information sought is more appropriately discoverable through ... expert discovery.”). 2. Analysis a. Topic 1 Topic 1 of the deposition notice seeks testimony on: “[t]he existence, investigation, and remediation of SOIL CONTAMINATION at the FACILITY ....” Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 12. Hot Line's consultant, E2C Remediation, conducted soil sampling at the applicable facility in August and September 2021. Id. Plaintiffs seek to “inquire as to the extent of Hot Line's ... knowledge of these August and September 2021 sampling efforts by E2C Remediation, including information about where the sampling occurred, what methods were used, and why the particular sampling locations and methods were chosen.” MTC JS at 29. Hot Line argues it should not have to produce a witness that is “an expert as to soil testing.” Id. at 31. Here, Plaintiffs fail to explain how it is relevant whether Hot Line has the “knowledge of ... sampling efforts by E2C Remediation.”. Moreover, it appears Plaintiffs have already deposed “multiple witnesses” from E2C Remediation regarding these issues. Id. at 32. The information Plaintiffs appear to seek – “what methods were used, and why the particular sampling locations and methods were chosen” – is precisely what the Court assumes was the subject of the depositions of E2C Remediations' witnesses. Additionally, any questioning of Hot Line's representative regarding any reports prepared by E2C Remediation, which have clearly been provided in discovery already, is essentially a quiz and it is “simply impractical to expect Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to know the intimate details” E2C Remediation's sampling. DarbeeVision, Inc., 2019 WL 2902697, at *8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Hot Line to designate and prepare a witness to testify regarding the August and September 2021 sampling efforts by E2C Remediation is DENIED. b. Topics 3, 4, and 5 *7 Topics 3, 4, and 5 of the deposition notice seek information on any operations and activities conducted at the facility, including the handling, storage, and/or disposal practices for treated utility poles and treated wood waste. Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 13. Hot Line has agreed that these topics permit deposition testimony on bills of lading that Hot Line produced in the case. MTC JS at 29. Plaintiffs seek to depose a witness “who can testify about the bills of lading dealing with utility poles, and in particular, what the bills of lading reflect (i.e., someone who can testify about what a given bill of lading reflects as to the quantity of the poles, the date of delivery, the location of delivery, and the type of products delivered on that date and to that location).” Id. at 29-30. Here, it is not entirely clear what Plaintiffs are seeking. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to have a witness interpret the bills of lading, Hot Line shall designate and prepare a witness to testify regarding how to read and interpret their business documents. However, to the extent Plaintiffs seek a witness to testify regarding how much product was actually delivered on any particular day, Plaintiffs fail to explain how that would be relevant as they have not provided any basis to believe the bills of lading are not accurate. Therefore, preparing such a witness would be disproportionate to the needs of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Hot Line to designate and prepare a witness to testify regarding the bills of lading is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. c. Topics 10 and 11 Topic 10 of the deposition notice seeks testimony on storm water runoff from the facility, including (1) the pathways for such runoff and whether such runoff flows into any waterway or conveyance that flows into any waterway or wetland, and (2) any measures considered or implemented to reduce the levels of contaminants in storm water runoff from the facility. Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 14. Topic 11 of the deposition notice seeks testimony on any best management practices at the facility designed to control the offsite migration of contaminants in storm water. Id. Here, it appears Topics 10 and 11 seek both factual information that would reasonably be available to Hot Line's representatives, such as the recommendations of their consultant Mary Larsen and any measures that were implemented, and technical and complex information that is more properly the subject of expert reports and testimony. Plaintiffs are entitled to question Hot Line's representative(s) about the factual information reasonably available to Hot Line. However, to the extent experts have been designated to testify regarding the more technical aspects of Topics 10 and 11, such as stormwater pathways “across the facility, off the facility, and through all downstream waterways”, it is not Hot Line's responsibility to educate or otherwise inform a Hot Line representative about information outside the scope of Hot Line's normal business operations and Plaintiffs should reserve such technical questions for expert discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Hot Line to designate and prepare a witness to testify regarding Topics 10 and 11 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. d. Topic 20 Topic 20 of the deposition notice seeks testimony on any insurance policies applicable to Hot Line's operations at the facility, including the scope of coverage under such policies, the amounts of coverage under such policies, and whether such policies include coverage for litigation costs (including attorneys' fees and costs). Orion MTC Decl., ¶ 15. Plaintiffs seek to have a witness testify “as to the coverage being afforded by both Aspen, AIG, and any other carrier, including for defense costs [as well as] if any carrier has denied coverage for other than defense costs.” MTC JS at 31. Hot Line objects to producing a witness “that is an expert on insurance coverage issues.” Id. *8 To the extent the factual information regarding Hot Line's insurance coverage is readily available to its representatives, Hot Line shall designate and prepare a witness to testify on these issues. However, it appears the extent of Hot Line's knowledge may be revealed through its supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission discussed above. If so, the Court expects Plaintiffs will withdraw this deposition topic. Plaintiffs are further cautioned, inquiries seeking “legal conclusions ... should not form the basis for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics.” DarbeeVision, Inc., 2019 WL 2902697, at *7 (quoting 3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1794936, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2007)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Hot Line to designate and prepare a witness to testify regarding Topic 20 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. D. ASPEN SUBPOENA 1. Applicable Law The scope of discovery allowed under a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26. Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 2013 WL 6774072, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013); FED. R. CIV. P. 45 Advisory Comm.'s Note (1970) (“[T]he scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to ... other discovery rules.”). “A person from or about whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order limiting or even forbidding discovery ‘for good cause’ to protect the moving party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Daniels v. G4S Secure Sols. USA, Inc., No. 8:20-CV-00283-JGB (JDEx), 2020 WL 6535783, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2020), partially reversed on other grounds on reconsideration, 2020 WL 7861983 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)). Additionally, Rule 45 provides that a subpoena must be modified or quashed if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies,” or if the subpoena “subjects a person to undue burden.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), (iv). A party seeking a protective order bears a “heavy burden” of showing why discovery should be limited. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); 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.”). 2. Analysis Here, Plaintiffs seek documents from Aspen to show: “(1) whether Aspen, AIG, or both are actually paying the defense costs in this action; (2) the amount of the policies that have been exhausted through claims and defense costs; or (3) whether Aspen or AIG has expressed any intention to deny coverage in light of their reservation of rights.” Subpoena JS at 12. Plaintiffs concede “[h]ad Hot Line properly responded to [Plaintiffs Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 28], Plaintiffs may have had the necessary information without some of the documents sought in the Subpoena.” Subpoena JS at 13. Hot Line argues “Plaintiffs have already been provided with all coverage letters, which are the only definitive statement made by Aspen on this issue.” Subpoena JS at 14. In light of the instant Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission, further discovery from Aspen appears unnecessarily duplicative and unduly burdensome. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to the Aspen Subpoena is DENIED without prejudice, and Hot Line's Motion to Quash the Aspen Subpoena is DENIED as MOOT. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.[3] *9 2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel further responses to the Aspen Subpoena is DENIED; and 3. Hot Lines' Motion to Quash the Aspen Subpoena is DENIED as MOOT. Accordingly, no later than July 29, 2022, Hot Line shall serve supplemental responses to: (a) Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 8-16, 20-24, 34-36, and 51-57; (b) Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production Nos. 5-27; and (c) Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Requests for Production. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The SAC plead claims against Hot Line and SCE under both RCRA and the CWA. See dkt. 19. On April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs and Hot Line entered a stipulation to dismiss the CWA claim with prejudice. Dkt. 94. Plaintiffs and SCE subsequently stipulated to the entry of a consent decree to settle all claims, which the Court entered on November 9, 2021. Dkt. 121. Thus, the sole remaining claim in the case is the RCRA claim (Claim 2) against Hot Line. The parties currently dispute whether Plaintiffs have adequately pled a claim for civil penalties under RCRA. [2] While the parties appear to dispute whether Plaintiffs properly served their Fourth Set of Requests for Production on each person at defense counsel's law firm that defense counsel requested, which lack of proper service Hot Line blames for its slightly tardy initial responses, the merits of this issue are not relevant to Plaintiffs' demand that Hot Line serve supplemental responses “making clear whether, when, and to what extent it is producing responsive records with respect to each [Request for Production].” MTC JS at 27-28. Accordingly, the Court declines to address this issue and once again reminds the parties of their “shared responsibility ... to consider the factors bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar, 2016 WL 736213, at *2. [3] The Court does not anticipate the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Hot Line will be completed before the current July 29, 2022 discovery cut-off. The Court, however, takes no position on whether the discovery cut-off should be continued to permit the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Hot Line to go forward, as that issue is not before this Court and must be presented to the District Judge. The Court expects the parties to meet and confer to arrive at a reasonable solution.