Jarod SALAS v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al Case No. EDCV 22-978-MEMF (KKx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed May 04, 2023 Kato, Kenly K., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents [Dkt. 34]; and (2) DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories [Dkt. 35] *1 On March 30, 2023, plaintiff Jarod Salas (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking to compel defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) to produce further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 13-15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31-35, 44, and 46-55 and for monetary sanctions of $9,550.00 (“RFP Motion”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 34. On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to compel Defendant to serve further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, and 18 and for monetary sanctions of $6,900.00 (“ROG Motion”). Dkt. 35. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's RFP Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Plaintiff's ROG Motion is DENIED. In addition, Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. BACKGROUND On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino. Dkt. 1 at Ex. A. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant and alleges that on January 29, 2022, Defendant wrongfully terminated his employment as an Operations Manager at Defendant's Rialto, California Distribution Center. Id. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated by his manager Samantha Segura after taking four weeks of medical disability leave in September 2021 and January 2022 due to COVID-19 on the pretext of not having timely “escalated” a complaint by employee Vivica Berrios about her co-worker. Id. On June 10, 2022, Defendant removed the action to this Court, dkt. 1, and filed an Answer, id. at Ex. B. On September 22, 2022, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a fact discovery cut-off on May 10, 2023 and a Jury Trial for November 13, 2023. Dkt. 15. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant via email. Dkt. 34-1 at 5-10, Declaration of Geoffrey Lyon in support of RFP Motion (“Lyon RFP Decl.”), ¶ 19, Ex. 8; Dkt. 35-1 at 6-12, Declaration of Geoffrey Lyon in support of ROG Motion (“Lyon ROG Decl.”), ¶ 17, Ex. 5. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff re-served the Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant via U.S. mail. Dkt. 37, Declaration of Caroline Lutz in support of RFP Opposition (“Lutz RFP Decl.”), ¶ 5, Ex. C; Dkt. 44, Declaration of Caroline Lutz in support of ROG Opposition (“Lutz ROG Decl.”), ¶ 5, Ex. C. On December 13, 2022, Defendant served Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Interrogatories, Set One. Lyon RFP Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. 10; Lyon ROG Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. 9. On January 23, 2023, counsel for both parties met and conferred telephonically regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Interrogatories, Set One. Lyon RFP Decl., ¶ 8; Lyon ROG Decl., ¶ 2. On January 23, 2023, Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Interrogatories, Set One. Lutz RPF Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. E; Lutz ROG Decl, ¶ 7, Ex. E. *2 On January 25, 2023, the Court approved the parties' Stipulated Protective Order governing the exchange of documents in discovery. Dkt. 23. On February 6, 2023, Defendant served second supplemental responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Lutz RFP Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. F. On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff served an initial draft of a motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Lutz RFP Decl., ¶ 13. On March 20, 2023, defense counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel an email seeking to meet and confer regarding alleged misrepresentations in the initial motion to compel. Id., Ex. M. Plaintiff's counsel did not respond. Id. On March 21, 2023, Defendant served third supplemental responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One correcting the numbering of the responses and second supplemental responses to Interrogatories, Set One. Lutz RFP Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. G; Lutz ROG Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. F. On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff served his portion of a Joint Stipulation in connection with the instant RFP Motion. Lutz RFP Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. M. That same day, March 21, 2023, defense counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel another email seeking to meet and confer regarding “factual[ ] inaccura[cies]” in the RFP Motion. Id. On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel declined to meet and confer further and responded that they would file the motion regardless. Id., ¶ 15, Ex. M. On March 30, 2023, Defendant served “amended” third supplemental responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Lutz RFP Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. H. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant RFP Motion seeking to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 13-15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31-35, 44, and 46-55 and for monetary sanctions of $9,550.00. Dkt. 34. On April 6, 2023, Defendant filed an Opposition to the RFP Motion and request for monetary sanctions of $3,865.00.[1] Dkt. 36. On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the RFP Motion.[2] Dkt. 45. On April 14, 2023, Defendant filed a Request to file a response to Plaintiff's Reply and attached a copy of the proposed Sur-Reply.[3] Dkt. 47. *3 On April 3, 2023, Defendant served its third supplemental responses[4] to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. Lutz ROG Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. G. On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant ROG Motion seeking to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, and 18 and for monetary sanctions of $6,900.00. Dkt. 35. On April 13, 2023, Defendant filed an Opposition to the ROG Motion and request for monetary sanctions of $4,110.00.[5] Dkt. 42. On April 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the ROG Motion.[6] Dkt. 48. 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). “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). “In moving to compel the production of documents, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating ‘actual and substantial prejudice’ from the denial of discovery.” Grossman v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., No. EDCV 16-1840-GW (SPx), 2018 WL 5914242, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2018). In addition, “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery, the discovery requested must also be proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v. City of Fresno, No. 1:16-CV-653 DAD (SAB), 2016 WL 7491634, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) (citing In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)). III. DISCUSSION A. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS *4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 party must respond in writing 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(a). Alternatively, a party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B). 1. Advertising Materials[7] - Request for Production No. 26 Request for Production No. 26 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS advertising [Defendant] had an Operations Manager position open in the 12 months before and/or the 12 months after PLAINTIFF'S termination.” Dkt. 34 at 45. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 26 on the following grounds: (a) it “assumes facts which Defendant neither concedes nor for which there is any proper evidentiary support”; (b) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (c) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant”; (d) relevance; and (e) proportionality. Dkt. 36 at 65-66. Defendant then responds: “Pursuant to the January 23, 2023 conference of counsel and the Parties' agreement in meet and confer that the relevant time period of September 1, 2022 to January 29, 2022 applies to this request, and after performing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry of the records under the possession, custody, and control of Defendant, Defendant is unable to comply with this request because the documents do not exist.” Id. at 66. Plaintiff argues that despite Defendant's representation that the documents do not exist, because Plaintiff's replacement was promoted to Plaintiff's position within a couple weeks of Plaintiff's termination and had already completed eight weeks of training for the position, which is generally preceded by “a couple of weeks” of interviews and a week of advertising, Defendant must have advertised for the position during the relevant time. Dkt. 45 at 5. However, merely because it is Defendant's practice to advertise before interviews and training, does not establish that it occurred in this instance. In addition, there is no testimony from any witness stating they specifically remember seeing an advertisement for Plaintiff's position. Moreover, the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce documents that it says do not exist after performing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 26 is DENIED. 2. Documents Relating to Ms. Berrios' Complaint and Plaintiff's Escalation of the Complaint to HR – Requests for Production Nos. 46 and 48-50 a. Request for Production No. 46 Request for Production No. 46 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including emails and electronic messages, reflecting any correspondence between PLAINTIFF and HR Taralynn LNU (‘last name unknown’).” Dkt. 34 at 71. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 46 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; and (b) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant.” Dkt. 36 at 28. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant in response to this request for the relevant time period of September 1, 2021 to January 29, 2022, subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Id. *5 Plaintiff argues Defendant has not produced an email from approximately 1:44 pm on January 24, 2022 from Plaintiff to HR manager Taralynn Pacheco that attached a copy of the HR Intake Form prepared by Plaintiff after his meeting with Ms. Berrios. Dkt. 45 at 9; see dkt. 34-1 at 4, Declaration of Jarod Salas in support of RFP Motion (“Salas RFP Decl.”), ¶ 3. However, the declaration of counsel in support of Defendant's Sur-Reply confirm the native format of the requested email was produced on March 28, 2023. Dkt. 47 at 10-15, Declaration of Caroline Lutz in support of Sur-Reply (“Lutz Sur-Reply Decl.”), ¶ 4, Ex. E. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 46 is DENIED. b. Requests for Production Nos. 48-50 Request for Production No. 48 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including video or security video or images, regarding the conversation between Mbr. Berrios and Plaintiff referring to Mbr. Berrios overhearing co-worker Michael Gonzales say ‘Vivica has buck teeth’ and/or Mbr. Berrios refusing to go for a drink with Michael Gonzalez on or about January 22, 2022.” Dkt. 34 at 75. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 48 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; and (b) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant.” Dkt. 36 at 71. Defendant then responds: “After performing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry of the records under the possession, custody, and control of Defendant, Defendant is unable to comply with this request because the materials do not exist.” Dkt. 36 at 71. Request for Production No. 49 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including emails, text messages, or other communications, regarding the conversation between Mbr. Berrios and Plaintiff referring to Mbr. Berrios overhearing co-worker Michael Gonzales say ‘Vivica has buck teeth’ and/or Mbr. Berrios refusing to go for a drink with Michael Gonzalez on or about January 22, 2022.” Id. Request for Production No. 50 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS, including witness statements, notes of witness statements, or any written descriptions, regarding the conversation between Mbr. Berrios and Plaintiff referring to Mbr. Berrios overhearing co-worker Michael Gonzales say ‘Vivica has buck teeth’ and/or Mbr. Berrios refusing to go for a drink with Michael Gonzalez on or about January 22, 2022.” Id. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Requests Nos. 49 and 50 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (b) they are “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in [ ] scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant,”; and (c) privacy because they “in effect ask[ ] for the disclosure of third party information.” Dkt. 36 at 30-31, 33. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant in response to this request for the relevant time period of January 22, 2022 to January 29, 2022, subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Dkt. 36 at 31, 33. Plaintiff argues Defendant has not in fact made a diligent search for a “Staffing Sheet” where Plaintiff had taken detailed notes of his conversation with Ms. Berrios. Dkt. 45 at 7-8. Plaintiff states he “prepared contemporaneous handwritten notes on the back of [his] Staffing Sheet dated Saturday, January 22, 2022, of what [Ms.] Berrios reported to [him] about [her co-worker] that day.” Salas RFP Decl., ¶ 2. At her deposition on April 12, 2023, Ms. Pacheco testified she was unaware of anyone at Defendant ever searching for the Staffing Sheet and did not recall anyone asking her to search for it. Dkt. 45 at 16-17, Supplemental Declaration of Geoffrey Lyon, Ex. 33 at 168-69. However, the declaration of counsel in support of Defendant's Sur-Reply confirms Defendant searched for the Staffing Sheet on March 25, 2023 and defense counsel confirmed the same to Plaintiff's counsel via email on that date. Lutz Sur-Reply Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. G. Therefore, Defendant's representation that it has produced all responsive documents is sufficient. *6 Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Requests Nos. 48-50 is DENIED. 3. Documents Relating to Plaintiff's Performance – Requests for Production Nos. 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 32, 33, and 47 a. Request for Production No. 14 Request for Production No. 14 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR reasons for terminating PLAINTIFF.” Dkt. 34 at 16. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 14 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (b) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; and (c) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant.” Dkt. 36 at 39. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant in response to this request, subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Dkt. 36 at 39. Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to produce numerous categories of documents that would be responsive to this request, such as all communications from Ms. Berrios to HR regarding her co-worker, Ms. Pacheco's notes of her conversations or interviews with Ms. Berrios, the performance improvement plan on which Plaintiff was placed at the end of 2021 and any underlying documentation, “backup documents” for any performance criticisms including Key Performance Indicators for Operations Managers for each month for 2021 and 2022. Dkt. 34 at 19-20; Dkt. 45 at 10-12. Defendant, however, has represented it has produced all non-privileged, responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. It appears Plaintiff is seeking all documents “related” to Plaintiff's termination rather than, as the request states, those documents Defendant believes “support[s]” its termination of Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant's representation that it has produced all responsive documents is sufficient. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 14 is DENIED. b. Request for Production No. 15 Request for Production No. 15 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS relating to evaluations of PLAINTIFF'S performance, positive or negative. This includes but is not limited to annual or other performance evaluations and reviews, write-ups, warnings, written confirmations of verbal counselling, performance improvement plans (‘PIP’), certificates, awards, recognitions, emails and memoranda criticizing or commending performance, co-worker complaints or compliments, promotions, demotions, increase or decrease in responsibilities, raises, and other performance evaluation DOCUMENTS, positive or negative.” Dkt. 34 at 22. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 15 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (b) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (c) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant,” (d) relevance, and (e) proportionality. Dkt. 36 at 42. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents, including performance reviews and Performance Conversation Summaries for Plaintiff, within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant in response to this request subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Dkt. 36 at 43. *7 Plaintiff appears to argue Defendant should be required to produce quarterly Key Performance Indicators for 2021 and 2022 as well as for the month of January 2022. Dkt. 45 at 12. Plaintiff argues Ms. Segura testified Defendant can provide these statistics for any month, quarter, or year. Id. However, Rule 34 does not require a responding party to create documents. See Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding as reasonable ruling that defendant “not required to create documents to satisfy [plaintiff's] discovery requests”). Moreover, to the extent these statistics had not been run at the time of Plaintiff's evaluations, it is unclear how they are responsive to the instant request. Therefore, Defendant's representation that it has produced all responsive documents is sufficient. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 15 is DENIED. c. Request for Production No. 18 Request for Production No. 18 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all facts supporting any write-ups, warnings, performance improvement plans, or other disciplinary actions against PLAINTIFF.” Dkt. 34 at 28. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 18 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (b) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (c) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant,” (d) relevance, and (e) proportionality. Dkt. 36 at 45-46. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents in responses to this request, including but not limited to non-privileged documents currently contained in Plaintiff's personnel file, including Performance Summary Conversations, within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Dkt. 36 at 46. Plaintiff argues Defendant should be required to produce “the underlying documentation providing any factual basis” for (1) the “Performance Conversations” Mgr. Segura entered in Workday on September 6, 2021, criticizing Plaintiff for incidents in June 2021 and on August 30, 2021 (Ex. 1); and (2) the Performance Improvement Plan Mgr. Segura claims she was about to put Plaintiff on in December 2021 and January 2022. Dkt. 45 at 12. However, Defendant has represented that it has produced all non-privileged responsive documents. Therefore, Defendant's representation that it has produced all responsive documents is sufficient. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 18 is DENIED. d. Requests for Production Nos. 21 and 23 Request for Production No. 21 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS relating to PLAINTIFF'S termination, including but not limited to termination notices and letters, internal termination paperwork, emails DOCUMENTS discussing whether or not, how and when to terminate, discussing alternatives to termination, memoranda, and correspondence leading up to, during and following in the wake of, the termination.” Dkt. 34 at 35. Request for Production No. 23 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS containing any comments about PLAINTIFF'S performance, either internally or to a third-party, from 60 days before the last day PLAINTIFF was physically at work working for YOU, through the present.” Dkt. 34 at 39. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Requests Nos. 21 and 23 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (b) they are vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; and (c) they are “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in [ ] scope, including the fact that this request purportedly improperly seeks a positive confirmation of “relation”, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant.” Dkt. 36 at 48-49, 51-52. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents in response to this request, including but not limited to Plaintiff's personnel file, annual performance reviews, and Performance Conversation summaries, during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant before his discharge within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Dkt. 36 at 49, 52. *8 Plaintiff argues Defendant improperly refuses to produce any documents commenting on Plaintiff's performance after his termination. Dkt. 45 at 10. Defendant only argues it has “produced ‘all’ documents responsive to th[ese] request[s] within its possession, custody, or control.” Dkt. 36 at 49-50, 52-53. However, Defendant's responses appear to limit its production to documents “during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant before his discharge” despite the request for documents outside of this time period. The Court finds the requests seek information that is relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and are proportionate to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). In addition, Defendant's Opposition to the RFP Motion fails to make any arguments in support of its objections that the requests are vague or overbroad. Accordingly, Defendant's objections on the grounds the requests are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or overbroad are OVERRULED. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 21 and 23 is GRANTED. e. Requests for Production Nos. 32 and 33 Request for Production No. 32 states: “If you contend PLAINTIFF was terminated for violating any objective measure, whether for performance, attendance, conduct or otherwise, please produce all DOCUMENTS stating or showing such objective measures are applied to YOUR employees generally or to other Operation Managers.” Dkt. 34 at 51. Request for Production No. 33 states: “If you contend PLAINTIFF was terminated for violating any objective measures, whether of performance, attendance, conduct or otherwise, please produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the comparable objective measures for each Operations Manager for the last five years.” Dkt. 34 at 56. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Requests Nos. 32 and 33 on the following grounds: (a) they “assume[ ] facts which Defendant neither concedes nor for which there is any proper evidentiary support”; (b) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (c) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (d) they are “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in [ ] scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant”; (e) relevance; (f) proportionality; and (g) privacy because they “in effect ask[ ] for the disclosure of third party information.” Dkt. 36 at 55-56, 59-60. Defendant then responds: “Defendant has already produced all non-privileged documents in response to this request, including but not limited to Plaintiff's Performance Conversation Summaries, Plaintiff's Target Training History from May 26, 2017 through December 17, 2021, Chameleon Generated Gold Script Anti-Harassment and Discrimination for Target Employees dated April 16, 2021 completed by Plaintiff on August 2, 2021, Defendant's zero-tolerance EEO and Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, Defendant's Standard Daily Routine for Inbound/Outbound Operations Managers, Team Member Handbook which includes Defendant's policies on Diversity and Inclusion, Workplace Violence, and Open Door Policy, all of which were in effect during the relevant time period pertaining to this action, within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant in response to this request, subject to the Court's entry of a protective order in this action.” Id. at 56, 60. Plaintiff appears to argue Defendant should be required to produce quarterly Key Performance Indicators for 2021 and 2022 as well as for the month of January 2022 in response to these requests. Dkt. 45 at 12. Plaintiff argues Ms. Segura testified Defendant can provide these statistics for any month, quarter, or year. Id. However, “Rule 34 does not require the producing party to do more than produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business.” Shinedling v. Sunbeam Prod. Inc., No. EDCV 12-438-CJC (SPx), 2013 WL 12171959, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013). A party responding to document requests has no obligation to create documents for the requesting party. See Washington, 10 F.3d at 1437-38. Therefore, Defendant's representation that it has produced all responsive documents is sufficient. *9 Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 32 and 33 is DENIED. f. Request for Production No. 47 Request for Production No. 47 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS referring to the meeting that occurred on or about January 24, 2022, called by Production Controller Daniel Lopez for all Operations Managers, including what was discussed at the meeting and any actions taken as a result of the meeting.” Dkt. 34 at 73. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Request No. 47 on the following grounds: (a) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; and (b) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant.” Dkt. 36 at 68. Defendant then responds: “After performing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry of the records under the possession, custody, and control of Defendant, Defendant is unable to comply with this request because the documents do not exist.” Dkt. 36 at 69. It is unclear from the RFP Motion or Plaintiff's Reply what further documents he believes exist regarding this January 24, 2022 meeting. Plaintiff argues “[t]he documents typically associated with a managers['] meeting include things like [Key Performance Indicator]'s and action items.” Dkt. 34 at 74-75. However, Plaintiff's speculation that such documents were created in connection with the January 24, 2022 meeting of Operations Managers is insufficient to compel further production and the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce documents that it says do not exist after performing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 47 is DENIED. 4. Documents Relating to Whether Other Operations Managers Were Disciplined for Delays in Escalating Harassment Complaints – Requests for Production Nos. 31, 34, and 55 a. Requests for Production Nos. 31 and 34 Request for Production No. 31 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS reflecting that YOUR other California employees made the same types of errors for which PLAINTIFF was terminated, and any resulting discipline.” Dkt. 34 at 47. Request for Production No. 34 states: “If other of YOUR California employees have been terminated, written-up, or otherwise disciplined for any of the same reasons for which PLAINTIFF was terminated, produce all such DOCUMENTS for the last five years. If YOU employ over 1,000 people, YOU may limit the scope of this request to those employees who worked under Senior Operations Manager Samantha Segura.” Dkt. 34 at 60. In Defendant's operative response, Defendant objects to Requests Nos. 31 and 34 on the following grounds: (a) they “assume[ ] facts which Defendant neither concedes nor for which there is any proper evidentiary support”; (b) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (c) they are vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (d) they are “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in [ ] scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant”; (e) relevance; (f) proportionality; and (g) privacy because they “in effect ask[ ] for the disclosure of third party information.” Dkt. 36 at 73-74, 79-80. *10 Defendant now argues, notwithstanding its objections, that it voluntarily undertook an investigation in connection with Interrogatory No. 5 (discussed below) and determined there were no “complaints against Ms. Segura from the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic on March 15, 2020 to the date of Plaintiff's discharge on January 29, 2022 concerning disability discrimination or retaliation, disability discrimination or retaliation for ‘taking medical leave’, or disability discrimination or retaliation for “needing reasonable accommodations for a disability[.]” Dkt. 36 at 74-76. While the Court acknowledges the requests are not entirely clear regarding whether they are seeking evidence regarding the reasons Plaintiff alleges he was terminated or the reasons Defendant alleges he was terminated, Plaintiff's RFP Motion makes clear he is seeking information regarding Defendant's purported allegation that Plaintiff was terminated because he failed to timely escalate Ms. Berrios' complaint. See dkt. 34 at 48-49, 61-62. Therefore, Defendant's Opposition as to these requests is non-responsive. Nevertheless, the Court finds the requests are overbroad to the extent they seek information regarding employees who did not work under Ms. Segura. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 31 and 34 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses and produce all non-privileged documents reflecting whether other employees who worked under Ms. Segura made the same types of errors for which Defendant's allege Plaintiff was terminated and any resulting discipline. b. Request for Production No. 55 Request for Production No. 55 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS reflecting any discipline, including coaching, counseling, write-up, suspension and expulsion, which was given regarding any harassment Mbr. Berrios felt she was experiencing from any employees during her employment with YOU.” Dkt. 34 at 103. In Defendant's operative response, Defendant objects to Request No. 55 on the following grounds: (a) it “assumes facts which Defendant neither concedes nor for which there is any proper evidentiary support”; (b) attorney client privilege and attorney work product; (c) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (d) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant”; (e) relevance; (f) proportionality; and (g) privacy because it “in effect asks for the disclosure of third party information.” Dkt. 36 at 109-110. Once again, Defendant's Opposition argues, notwithstanding its objections, that it voluntarily undertook an investigation in connection with Interrogatory No. 5 regarding any discrimination complaints against Ms. Segura. Dkt. 36 at 110-115. Plaintiff, however, argues that information regarding whether Defendant took any disciplinary action against Ms. Berrios' co-worker in connection with Ms. Berrios' complaint is relevant to showing whether Plaintiff's alleged delay in escalating the complaint was merely pretext for his termination. Dkt. 34 at 107. The Court agrees such documents would be relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). In addition, to the extent Ms. Berrios' privacy is a concern, there is a protective order already in place in this action sufficient to protect her interests. However, the request as written is overbroad in that it is not limited to Ms. Berrios' January 22, 2022 complaint and it is unclear how any other complaints she may have made are relevant to the instant dispute. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further response to Request No. 55 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall serve a supplemental response and produce all non-privileged documents reflecting any discipline, including coaching, counseling, write-up, suspension and expulsion, which was given to the co-worker Ms. Berrios' complained about to Plaintiff on January 22, 2022 in connection with her January 22, 2022 complaint. B. INTERROGATORIES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33. “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(1). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4). 1. Interrogatory No. 5 *11 Interrogatory No. 5 states: “IDENTIFY all current and former employees, from rank and file to managers, working under Senior Operations Manager Samantha Segura, who in the last four (4) years have complained to YOU about harassment, discrimination or retaliation, based upon disabilities, taking medical leave, or needing reasonable accommodations for a disability.” Dkt. 35 at 12. In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the following grounds: (a) it “assumes facts which Defendant neither concedes nor for which there is any proper evidentiary foundation”; (b) it contains impermissible subparts; (c) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (d) relevance; (e) proportionality; (f) it is “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in its scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant”; and (g) privacy because it “in effect asks for the disclosure of third party information.” Dkt. 42 at 19-20. Defendant then responds in part that “it has no record of a complaint by a current or former employee of Defendant against Samantha Segura regarding what said employee purportedly believed to be disability discrimination or retaliation, disability discrimination or retaliation for ‘taking medical leave’, as that undefined phrase is understood by Defendant, or disability discrimination or retaliation for ‘needing reasonable accommodations for a disability’, as that undefined phrase is understood by Defendant, supposedly by Ms. Segura, during the relevant time in which Ms. Segura supervised Plaintiff before his discharge as it pertains to this action, to wit, from approximately June 1, 2021 to January 29, 2022, or further from the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic on March 15, 2020 to January 29, 2022 (the date of Plaintiff's discharge for failing to immediately report a harassment complaint by a subordinate to Defendant pursuant to company policy)[.]” Id. at 76. Plaintiff argues Defendant improperly limited its investigation to “persons who took leave for Covid.” Dkt. 48 at 5. Plaintiff states it had offered during meet and confer discussions in January 2023 to limit the request to persons working under Ms. Segura, who had taken two consecutive weeks or more off work, under a doctor's note, and complained of harassment, discrimination or retaliation based on their medical leave or medical condition. Id. However, contrary to Plaintiff's argument, Defendant's most recent supplemental response is not limited to persons who took leave for Covid. Plaintiff fails to make a compelling argument for why Defendant's current response is insufficient. Hence, Plaintiff's ROG Motion to compel further response to Interrogatory No. 5 is DENIED. 2. Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 Interrogatory No. 7 states: “IDENTIFY all current and former employees, from rank and file to managers, working under Senior Operations Manager Samantha Segura whose employment ended in the last four (4) years while they were absent under a doctor's note or other medical certification or while on FMLA leave.” Dkt. 35 at 21. Interrogatory No. 8 states: “IDENTIFY all current and former employees, from rank and file to managers, working under Senior Operations Manager Samantha Segura, whose employment ended in the last four (4) years, and who had returned to work from a period of FMLA or disability leave within four months before their employment ended.” Dkt. 35 at 30. *12 In Defendant's operative supplemental response, Defendant objects to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 on the following grounds: (a) they “assume[ ] facts which Defendant neither concedes nor for which there is any proper evidentiary foundation”; (b) they contain impermissible subparts; (c) they are vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (d) relevance; (e) proportionality; (f) they are “overly broad and without reasonable limitation in [ ] scope, thereby resulting in annoyance, embarrassment, burden, and oppression to Defendant”; and (g) privacy because they “in effect ask[ ] for the disclosure of third party information.” Dkt. 42 at 28, 35-36. Defendant then responds in part that “it has no record of a complaint by a current or former employee of Defendant against Samantha Segura regarding what said employee purportedly believed to be disability discrimination or retaliation, disability discrimination or retaliation for ‘taking medical leave’, as that undefined phrase is understood by Defendant, or disability discrimination or retaliation for ‘needing reasonable accommodations for a disability’, as that undefined phrase is understood by Defendant, supposedly by Ms. Segura, during the relevant time in which Ms. Segura supervised Plaintiff before his discharge as it pertains to this action, to wit, from approximately June 1, 2021 to January 29, 2022, or further from the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic on March 15, 2020 to January 29, 2022 (the date of Plaintiff's discharge for failing to immediately report a harassment complaint by a subordinate to Defendant pursuant to company policy)[.]” Id. at 28-30, 36-38. Here, Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 seek information regarding persons whose situation Plaintiff believes implies they may have been improperly terminated or discriminated against. However, because they have not filed complaints against Ms. Segura, Plaintiff fails to make a compelling argument for how the information is relevant or proportionate to the needs of this case. Hence, Plaintiff's ROG Motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 is DENIED. C. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN PART 1. Applicable Law Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) (“Rule 37(a)(5)”), if requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, “the court must ... require the party ... 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,” unless “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A). If a motion to compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part, the court “may” apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(C). In addition, pursuant to Local Rule 37-4, the failure of any counsel to comply with the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37-1 and/or participate in preparation of the Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 may result in the imposition of sanctions. L.R. 37-4. When an award of attorney's fees and expenses is authorized, the court must calculate the proper amount of the award to ensure it is reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983). Reasonableness is generally determined using the “lodestar” method, where a court considers the work completed and multiplies “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate.” Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). The moving party has the burden to produce evidence that the rates and hours worked are reasonable. See Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, 6 F.3d 614, 623 (9th Cir. 1983). 2. Analysis Here, Plaintiff seeks an award of $9,550.00 for hours worked by Geoffrey Lyon and Kathleen Collins in connection with the RFP Motion. Plaintiff's RFP Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Therefore, the Court may apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(C). The Court first notes Plaintiff's delay in bringing the motion and resulting rush to file the motion before the discovery cut-off precluded further meeting and conferring. However, based on Defendant's piecemeal approach to serving supplemental responses and defense counsel's failure to participate in the preparation of a Joint Stipulation, the Court finds some award of attorney's fees to Plaintiff is appropriate. *13 With respect to the ROG Motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of $6,900.00 for hours worked by Mr. Lyon and Ms. Collins. Plaintiff's ROG Motion is denied in its entirety. However, with the exception of Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8, Defendant only served sufficient responses after the ROG Motion was filed. Therefore, an award of reasonable expenses is generally mandatory. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A). While Defendant continues to stand by its objections, it ultimately served responses that satisfied Plaintiff and the Court. Therefore, with the exception of Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8, Defendant's failure to timely serve its supplemental responses is not substantially justified. Further, defense counsel's failure to participate in the preparation of a Joint Stipulation resulted in additional needless expenditure of the Court's and Plaintiff's counsel's time. Therefore, the Court finds an award of some attorney's fees to Plaintiff is appropriate. a. Reasonableness of Hourly Rates To assist the Court in calculating the lodestar, the fee applicant must submit “satisfactory evidence ... that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 n.11 (1984). The relevant community is that in which the district court sits. See Schwarz v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir. 1995). As evidence of the reasonableness of their hourly rates, Plaintiff's counsel provide declarations regarding their litigation experience. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Affidavits of the plaintiffs' attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determination in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.”). The hourly rate of Plaintiff's counsel Mr. Lyon is $850.00. Lyon RFP Decl., ¶ 9; Lyon ROG Decl., ¶ 11. Mr. Lyon is an experienced trial lawyer who has owned and operated Lyon Law since 1992 and practicing employment law exclusively since approximately 2006. Id., ¶ 10. The hourly rate of Plaintiff's counsel Ms. Collins is $450.00. Dkt. 34-1 at 11, Declaration of Kathleen Collins in support of RFP Motion (“Collins RFP Decl.”), ¶ 3; Dkt. 35-1 at 13, Declaration of Kathleen Collins in support of ROG Motion (“Collins ROG Decl.”), ¶ 3. Ms. Collins is a semi-retired attorney working as contract counsel with Lyon Law PC. Id., ¶ 1. She is a 1995 graduate of Loyola Law School and has spent the majority of her practice leading an in-house labor and employment team for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Id., ¶ 2. Therefore, in light of Mr. Lyon's and Ms. Collins' substantial experience and based on the Court's general knowledge of rates in the Los Angeles legal community, the Court finds the hourly rates requested are reasonable for purposes of this Order only. b. Reasonableness of Time Spent Plaintiff's counsel Mr. Lyon spent five hours revising the RFP Motion and anticipated spending two hours preparing and revising the supplemental brief. Lyon RFP Decl., ¶ 9. In addition, Ms. Collins spent eight hours preparing the RFP Motion. Collins RFP Decl., ¶ 3. With respect to the ROG Motion, Mr. Lyon spent four hours revising the ROG Motion and anticipated spending two hours preparing and revising the supplemental brief. Lyon ROG Decl., ¶ 11. Ms. Collins spent four hours preparing the ROG Motion. Collins ROG Decl., ¶ 3. The Court finds the time Plaintiff's counsel spent preparing the motions and reply briefs is reasonable. However, because Plaintiff was only partially successful on the RFP Motion (i.e., only five of the twenty-four requests for supplemental responses were only granted in part), the Court finds an award of twenty percent of Plaintiff's requested award is reasonable, resulting in an award to Plaintiff on the RFP Motion of $1,910.00. In addition, because Defendant's objections to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 were substantially justified, the Court will reduce Plaintiff's requested award by $450.00, resulting in an award on the ROG Motion of $6,450.00. IV. CONCLUSION *14 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's RFP Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above and Plaintiff's ROG Motion is DENIED. Accordingly, no later than May 10, 2023, Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to Requests for Production Nos. 21, 23, 31, 34, and 55. In addition, within thirty days of the date of this Order, Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, shall pay Plaintiff the sum of $8,360.00 pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) as the reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the instant motions. Footnotes [1] Defendant also filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of its Opposition to the RFP Motion requesting that the Court take judicial notice of documents filed in this action, e.g., Plaintiff's Complaint and this Court's prior orders. Dkt. 38. Defendant's request is unnecessary, but is nevertheless GRANTED. [2] Notably, Plaintiff's Reply to the RFP Motion does not address Requests Nos. 13, 24, 35, 44, or 51-54. Therefore, it appears the parties have reached a resolution regarding these requests. In addition, the Court's review of Defendant's operative supplemental responses demonstrates Defendant has produced all non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody, and control. Hence, Plaintiff's RFP Motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 13, 24, 35, 44, or 51-54 is DENIED as MOOT. [3] While the Court is not pleased with piecemeal productions and Defendant's failure to participate in the preparation of a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2, upon review of the Sur-Reply, the Court finds the request should be GRANTED in the interests of justice. [4] Defendant's third supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One was incorrectly labeled Defendant's Second Supplemental Responses. Lutz ROG Decl., ¶¶ 8-9. [5] Defendant also filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of its Opposition to the ROG Motion requesting that the Court take judicial notice of documents filed in this action, e.g., Plaintiff's Complaint and this Court's prior orders. Dkt. 43. Once again, Defendant's request is unnecessary, but is nevertheless GRANTED. [6] In the Reply to the ROG Motion, Plaintiff represented he is “satisfied with [Defendant's] second supplemental responses to [Requests] Nos. 11-15, 17, and 18[.]” Hence, Plaintiff's ROG Motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 11-15, 17, and 18 is DENIED as MOOT. [7] The Court will discuss the requests for production as they are grouped in Plaintiff's Reply.