Tomas Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube LLC, et al Case No.: 8:23-01698 MEMF (ADSx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed September 23, 2024 Spaeth, Autumn D., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (DKT. NO. 113) *1 Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Tomas Leszczynski (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Kitchen Cube LLC (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 113.) The Motion attaches a 135-page Joint Stipulation (“JS”) and no declarations. (Dkt. No. 113-1.) At issue are 148 Requests for Production (the “RFPs”). The Motion is suitable for decision without a hearing. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires production of responsive documents “in the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Following a reasonable investigation to locate responsive materials, a responding party must serve a written response to each request within 30 days either stating that it will produce copies of the documents requested or identifying any objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Failing to timely serve Rule 34 responses generally waives all objections therein. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 148, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). But “[c]ourts have the discretion to relieve a late-responding party from the potentially harsh consequences of waiver.” United States v. Pac. Dermatology Inst., Inc., No. CV 20-1906 JGB (SHKx), 2024 WL 1136395, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2024); Shacar v. Trans Union LLC, No. CV 20-11115 AB (RAOx), 2021 WL 6496405, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021); see also Sablan v. Dept. of Finance of Com. Of No. Mariana Islands, 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining district courts enjoy broad discretion to permit or deny discovery). Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant served “non-specific and duplicative” responses to the RFPs three days after the 30-day deadline, which included improper general objections, and that Defendant's “statement[s] that it has already produced all documents responsive to [the RFPs], without providing a specific, itemized privilege log or detailed account of the search conducted, [are] inadequate.” (JS 9–10.) For these reasons, Plaintiff argues, the Court should strike the objections, compel Defendant to provide responses “detailing the search efforts made and the specific documents produced,” and consider appropriate sanctions. (JS 10–11.) Defendant, on the other hand, argues that Plaintiff fails to establish any legal basis for the relief he seeks. (JS 11, 15–133.) Defendant explains that a calendaring error caused the three-day delay in responding to the RFPs. (JS 5.) However, Defendant argues, it has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, and control; there is simply nothing further to compel Defendant to produce. (JS 6, 15–133.) The Motion must be denied in its entirety. First, Plaintiff provides no legal support for his request to strike Defendant's objections besides the fact that they were three-days late. Presumably, Plaintiff is requesting a finding that Defendant's untimely objections are waived. In exercising its discretion, however, the Court finds Defendant's untimely objections are not waived, given it was only a brief, three-day delay in response to 149 RFPs. See, e.g., EVO Brands, LLC v. Al Khalifa Grp. LLC, No. CV 22-3909 AB (MARx), 2023 WL 5506883, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023) (finding untimely objections not waived by 17-day delay in responding to extensive discovery requests); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236, 240 (D.D.C. 1999) (court could exercise discretion to find no waiver of objections despite that responses were one week late). Thus, Plaintiff's request to strike Defendant's objections is denied. *2 Second, Plaintiff fails to support his request that Defendant provide further responses to the RFPs. Plaintiff gives the Court no reason to believe Defendant's responses here were inadequate and must be supplemented. Defendant responded to the RFPs, in part, by stating that it has produced all documents responsive to the specific request, if any, and does not have additional responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. (JS 15–133.) Plaintiff identifies no authority under which discovery responses are inadequate if they state that all responsive documents have been produced but do not detail the search efforts or specific documents produced in response to each request. The Court is aware of no such rule. Defendant was required to respond to each RFP either by stating that it will produce copies of the documents requested or by identifying any objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Defendant has done so. Plaintiff points to no missing documents or evidence that responsive documents exist and have not been produced. Thus, Plaintiff's request for further responses to the RFPs is denied. Finally, Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. Plaintiff again fails to sufficiently identify, develop, or explain any evidence-based or legally supported argument for sanctioning Defendant here. Plaintiff merely asks the Court to consider appropriate sanctions under Rule 37. (JS 11.) As Plaintiff has lost this Motion, he is not entitled to sanctions against Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), (B); see also Western Radio Services Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970, 979 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts will not do litigants work for them “either by manufacturing its legal arguments, or by combing the record on its behalf for factual support”). The Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.