On 14 March 2014, the motions of plaintiff LJC Media LLC to (1) compel further responses to special interrogatories and for monetary sanctions, and (2) compel further responses to requests for production of documents and for monetary sanctions were argued and submitted. Defendant Yahoo! Inc. filed a formal opposition to the motions.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f).

Statement of Facts

This action arises from a dispute over a services contract between LJC Media LLC (“LJC” or “Plaintiff”) and Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”). Yahoo offers paid advertising services that allow businesses to reach prospective online customers through targeted advertising. To implement this service, Yahoo operates an advertising network in which it contracts with other entities to publish online advertisements. These network partners display the advertisements in response to search inquiries entered by online users and the advertisers pay Yahoo when users click on one of the displayed advertisements. Yahoo then pays the advertising network partner a portion, determined by the contract with the particular partner, of what the advertiser paid for the clicks on the advertisements.

The advertisers using Yahoo’s services only pay for “valid clicks”—clicks made by human users. According to Yahoo, clicks that appear to be invalid can be filtered out before the advertiser pays for them. Other clicks, which have been charged and paid for by advertisers, are analyzed after-the-fact for suspicious click activity. If clicks are deemed invalid, a refund is made to the advertiser.

The websites provided by the advertising network partners are assigned a Traffic Quality (“TQ”) rating. If online users perform desired actions—such as buying a product or filling out a form—at a low rate, the website receives a low TQ rating. If the TQ rating is low, the advertisers pay a discounted rate for clicks made on that website.

In March 2010, LJC and Yahoo entered into an agreement whereby LJC became one of Yahoo’s advertising network partners. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Yahoo agreed to pay LJC 77% of the gross revenue received by Yahoo from the advertisers less a 5% adjustment. Gross revenue is defined in the agreement as “the amount earned from Advertisers solely from the Paid Search Results after the Paid Search Results are displayed to human users on [LJC’s sites].” (Pl.’s Compl., Ex. A, ¶ (1)(d).) As defined by the parties’ agreement, “gross revenue” expressly excludes any “refunds to Advertisers.” (Id.) Under the agreement, Yahoo had the right to terminate the agreement with 24 hours notice “for any reason or no reason.” (Id., ¶ 2.) Yahoo sent LJC a letter on 24 May 2012, terminating the parties’ agreement at the end of the then-current period, which ended 5 June 2012.

On 16 May 2013, LJC instituted the present suit against Yahoo for breach of contract. According to the allegations of the complaint, Yahoo breached the parties’ agreement through the following actions: (1) imposing an arbitrary 8% reduction for clicks made on Plaintiff’s sites between October 2010 and February 2012, resulting in damages of at least $400,000; (2) imposing retroactive deductions in the amount of $220,000 during May and September 2011; and (3) improperly reducing payments based on TQ ratings from April 2010 through February 2012, resulting in underpayment of up to $3 million.

Discovery Dispute

On 11 July 2013, Plaintiff served Yahoo with its first sets of requests for production of documents (“RPD”) and special interrogatories (“SI”). Plaintiff granted Yahoo a 30-day extension to serve its responses and, on 16 September 2013, Yahoo served Plaintiff with responses to the RPD and SI.

On 21 October 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Yahoo’s counsel a meet and confer letter addressing perceived inadequacies with RPD Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 14. (Decl. of O’Keefe in Supp. of Mot. to Compel, Ex. E.)

On 24 October 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Yahoo’s counsel a meet and confer letter addressing perceived inadequacies with SI Nos. 1, 3, and 4. (Id., Ex. F.)

Counsel for the parties conferred on the discovery requests at issue via email through December 2013. (See Decl. of O’Keefe, Ex. G.) During those communications, in addition to RPD Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 14, Plaintiff’s counsel raised perceived inadequacies with RPD No. 5.

On 17 December 2013, Yahoo’s counsel indicated that he was unsure on his client’s position as to whether certain documents would and/or should be produced. Given this uncertainty, Yahoo’s counsel agreed to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to file any motions to compel to 22 January 2014. (Id., Ex. G.)

Yahoo failed to produce all of the requested documents before Plaintiff’s extended motion deadline and, on 22 January 2014, Plaintiff filed two separate motions to compel. The first seeks an order compelling further responses to RPD Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11, and 14, and requests monetary sanctions. The second seeks an order compelling further responses to SI Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and requests additional monetary sanctions. Yahoo filed a consolidated opposition to Plaintiff’s motions on 2 March 2014. Plaintiff filed its reply on 7 March 2014.

Discussion

I. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Document Requests

Plaintiff seeks further responses to RPD Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11, and 14. These requests seek information falling into three categories: (1) documents related to the amount of traffic generated by LJC for Yahoo (RPD No. 5); (2) documents identifying the advertisers to whom Yahoo refunded payments in relation to traffic generated by LJC (RPD Nos. 6 and 11); and (3) documents relating to how Yahoo calculates TQ ratings (RPD Nos. 8 and 14).

A. Legal Standard

Upon receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, including requests for the production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(7) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(8)
(9) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(10)
(11) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
(12)
(Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1) – (3).) The motion for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case) and specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Where the moving party establishes “good cause,” the burden shifts to the responding party to justify its objections. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)

B. RPD No. 5

RPD No. 5 seeks the following documents:

All reports setting forth the amount of traffic and revenue generated by LJC for YAHOO under the Letter Agreement from March 5, 2010 through June 5, 2012. For the purpose of these [requests], “traffic” is to be interpreted in the ordinary use of this word in this industry, which includes User clicks/responses to a query generated through a Search Box as defined in Paragraph 1(g) of the Letter Agreement.

(Decl. of O’Keefe, Ex. A, p. 3.)

In its response to RPD No. 5, Yahoo objected to the request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, overbreadth, undue burden, and that the request seeks the production of confidential documents without a protective order. (Pl.’s Separate Statement, p. 2.) Subject to these objections, Yahoo agreed to “produce non-privileged responsive documents sufficient to show the ‘amount of traffic and revenue generated by LJC for YAHOO under the Letter Agreement from March 5, 2010 through June 5, 2012’.” (Id.) Yahoo also agreed to produce the confidential documents after the parties executed a protective order. (Id.)

Ordinarily, the first question the Court must address in evaluating a motion to compel a further response to a document request is whether the moving party has established good cause. (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) For the reasons set forth below, however, the motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 5 is moot.

Yahoo served Plaintiff with its responses to the RPD on 16 September 2013. The parties thereafter executed a stipulated protective order, which was approved by the Court on 8 October 13. Yahoo then produced the confidential documents that it had originally refused to produce in the absence of a protective order. In its motion to compel further responses, Plaintiff indicates that Yahoo has produced over 100,000 documents. These documents, however, do not include the traffic logs in Yahoo’s possession concerning the revenue generated by LJC. Plaintiff now asks the Court to order Yahoo to produce the traffic logs.

During the pendency of the motions presently before the Court, on 4 February 2014, Yahoo produced the traffic logs. Because Yahoo has produced the traffic logs, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is moot with regard to RPD No. 5. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409 [holding that, when discovery responses are served after a motion to compel is filed, the court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances presented, including denying the motion to compel as moot].) Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 5 is DENIED AS MOOT.

C. RPD Nos. 6 and 11

RPD No. 6 seeks “[a]ny and all documents relating to any discounts or refunds you [Yahoo] contend you gave to any Advertiser relating in any way to traffic generated by LJC, including, without limitation, all communications with such Advertisers, cancelled checks, wire confirmations or other proof of payment of refunds, internal communications, memoranda or reports.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, p. 3.) RPD No. 11 seeks “[a]ny and all documents relating to any refunds YAHOO paid to any Advertisers for any Paid Search Results that appeared on LJC’s Offerings.” (Id., p. 4.)

Yahoo responded to these requests with objections. The responses are identical (other than quoting language from each respective request) and set forth the following objections:

Yahoo objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks production of attorney-client privileged documents and documents protected by the work product doctrine. Yahoo further objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks the production of “all” responsive documents regarding the subject [refunds paid by Yahoo to advertisers relating to traffic generated by LJC]. Yahoo further objects to this request to the extent it requests that Yahoo identify the advertisers or to provide information which would permit LJC to identify the advertisers. Yahoo also objects to the request to the extent it requests the production of confidential documents without a protective order.

Subject to the foregoing objections, Yahoo will produce non-privileged responsive documents sufficient to show the amount of discounts or refunds given to advertisers. Yahoo will produce confidential documents only after the entry of an acceptable protective order.

(Pl.’s Separate Statement, pp. 3-4.)

The first question the Court must address is whether Plaintiff has established good cause justifying further responses to RPD Nos. 6 and 11. (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) As indicated above, to establish good cause, the burden is on Plaintiff to show both relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case) and specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

Plaintiff asserts that Yahoo has produced lists showing that it allegedly gave certain advertisers “credits,” but Yahoo has not produced any evidence that it actually refunded money to advertisers for specific traffic generated by LJC. (Pl.’s Separate Statement, p. 5.) Plaintiff also asserts that, from other documents produced by Yahoo, it appears Yahoo may have made some large or generic refunds to advertisers for a number of reasons potentially unrelated to the traffic generated by LJC, which Yahoo is now using as justification for refusing to pay the amounts LJC claims it is owed. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Yahoo may have made refunds to advertisers for reasons wholly unrelated to LJC—such as attempting to secure an advertiser’s loyalty through incentive discounts. (Id.)

Based on these contentions, Plaintiff argues that the production of documents identifying the advertisers to whom Yahoo contends it made refunds, as well as all correspondence between Yahoo and the advertisers relating to the reasons for and amounts of each refund, are critical to testing Yahoo’s credibility and necessary for LJC to evaluate the merits of Yahoo’s factual contentions. (Id.) The Court agrees.

Plaintiff is correct that parties are entitled to utilize discovery to test the credibility of an opposing party’s contentions. (See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289.) Similarly, the Court finds that the names of the advertisers that received refunds from Yahoo are relevant for the purposes of discovery. The parties’ agreement specified that LJC was to receive “Adjusted Gross Revenue” from the payments made to Yahoo for the advertisements that appeared on LJC’s websites. The definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the parties’ agreement excludes refunds made by Yahoo to the advertisers. Plaintiff believes that some of the refunds may have been based on reasons unrelated to LJC’s performance under the agreement, rendering the discounted payment to LJC invalid.

Yahoo’s assertion that the names of the advertisers are irrelevant because the parties’ agreement does not allow for LJC to question the reasons for refunds made to advertisers is not well-taken. First, contrary to Yahoo’s argument, the information sought through discovery need not be directly related to Plaintiff’s claims. In the discovery context, relevance is to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure, (see Emerson Electric Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107), and “the standard is relevancy to the subject matter, which is determined by potential, not actual, issues in the case.” (National Steel Products Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492 [emphasis added].) Case law makes clear that the “relevancy of the subject matter” criterion is “a broader concept than ‘relevancy to the issues.’” (Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 172, quoting Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548, 560.) In this case, the Court has no problem concluding that the names of advertisers that Yahoo provided refunds is relevant to the “subject matter” of Plaintiff’s complaint, which alleges that the refunds were improper. Second, Yahoo’s argument on this issue relies on its own interpretation of the parties’ agreement. The interpretation of the agreement is a substantive matter and not properly before the Court on a discovery motion.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff demonstrated how the documents sought through RPD Nos. 6 and 11 are relevant to the subject matter of this case and set forth specific facts justifying the discovery requests, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause. The burden therefore shifts to Yahoo to justify its objections. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)

In its opposition, other than its relevance argument, Yahoo only attempts to justify its undue burden objection. Consequently, Yahoo’s remaining objections are overruled, with the exception of its objections based on the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, which are preserved. (See Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; see also Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2204) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189.)

Concerning undue burden, Yahoo asserts that “Plaintiff’s justification for seeking the information, purportedly to seek discovery from the thousands of advertisers at issue, establishes under Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a), that the burden and intrusiveness of the requested production far outweighs the likelihood that the information will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” This argument is not well-taken. A party claiming that requested discovery is unduly burdensome must make a particularized showing of facts demonstrating hardship. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) Standing alone, the fact that a response to a particular discovery request requires a lot of work to answer does not justify an undue burden objection. (Id., at p. 418.) Yahoo has not made a particularized showing or otherwise explained why the disclosure of the names of the advertisers that received refunds would create a hardship. Yahoo’s objections on the basis of undue burden as to RPD Nos. 6 and 11 are therefore overruled.

Because Plaintiff has established good cause and Yahoo has failed to justify its objections, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 6 and 11 is GRANTED.

D. RPD Nos. 8 and 14

RPD No. 8 seeks “[a]ny and all documents relating to any definition or criteria for the methodology used by YAHOO to derive [TQ Ratings] from 2009 through the present for any and all vendors generating traffic to Yahoo’s Advertising network.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, p. 6.) RPD No. 14 seeks “[a]ny and all documents that YOU [Yahoo] contend authorized YAHOO to reduce the amount payable to LJC in any way as a result of a TQ rating.” (Id., p. 7.)

Yahoo object to RPD No. 8 on the following bases: attorney-client privilege; work product; overbreadth; undue burden; and relevance. Yahoo also objected on the bases that the request calls for the production of trade secrets and “presumes that Yahoo derives TQ ratings, rather than Microsoft.” (Id.) Yahoo objected to RPD No. 14 on the grounds relevance and that the request calls for the production of trade secrets. Notwithstanding these objections, Yahoo produced a document containing information about how Microsoft determines TQ ratings. The document was designated confidential under the parties’ protective order.

Concerning good cause, Plaintiff asserts that the information concerning TQ ratings is relevant because TQ ratings were used to reduce the amounts payable to LJC. Yahoo asserts that the TQ ratings were not technically used by Yahoo to reduce the payments made to LJC. Yahoo bases this argument on the fact that the TQ ratings are used to set prices paid by advertisers and not part of a specific calculation used to reduce the amount paid to Yahoo’s network partners. Yahoo does not contest, however, the fact that the TQ ratings did ultimately result in less revenue paid to LJC. Based on Yahoo’s representations, and given the “relevancy of the subject matter” criterion applicable to discovery matters, which is “a broader concept than ‘relevancy to the issues[,]’” (Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d at 172), the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating that the TQ ratings are relevant for discovery purposes. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause as to RPD Nos. 8 and 14.

Because Plaintiff has established good cause justifying further responses to RPD Nos. 8 and 14, the burden shifts to Yahoo to justify its objections. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)

In its opposition, other than its relevance objection, Yahoo does not attempt to justify its remaining objections. Consequently, Yahoo’s remaining objections are overruled, with the exception of its objections based on the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, which are preserved. (See Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; see also Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2204) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189.)

Yahoo also asserts that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as to RPD Nos. 8 and 14 because Yahoo stated in its responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories that Yahoo “is not privy to the criteria or methodology used by Microsoft to determine TQ Ratings, except that TQ Ratings are mainly based on click through and conversion rates.” (O’Keefe Decl., Ex. D, Response to SI No. 3.) This argument is not well-taken.

The Code of Civil Procedure permits three types of responses to a demand for the production of documents: (1) agreement to comply; (2) representation of inability to comply; or (3) objections. (CCP, § 2031.210, subd. (a).) Here, Yahoo’s responses to RPD Nos. 8 and 14 consisted entirely of objections. Yahoo did not represent in its responses to the RPD an inability to comply. Since Yahoo is taking the position now that it is unable to comply because it is not in possession of the information sought, it must do so in a verified response to Plaintiff’s requests.

Because Plaintiff has established good cause justifying further responses to RPD Nos. 8 and 14 and Yahoo has failed to justify its objections to the requests, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 8 and 14 is GRANTED.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks further responses to SI Nos. 1, 3, and 4, which request information concerning the refunds Yahoo made to advertisers and TQ ratings. In its response to the SI, Yahoo refused to produce the names of the advertisers, indicated that Yahoo was not privy to the methodology by which Microsoft calculates TQ ratings, and asserted that TQ ratings were not the basis for reducing the payments made to LJC. Plaintiff asserts that these responses are inadequate.

A. Legal Standard

After receiving responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) the answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) the objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”] § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1) – (3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

B. SI No. 1

SI No. 1 asks Yahoo to “[i]dentify all discounts or refunds you [Yahoo] contend you made to any Advertisers for any Paid Search Results that appeared on LJC’s Offerings by for each, stating the name of the advertiser and amount and date of each refund or discount.” (O’Keefe Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel, Ex. B.) Yahoo objected on the bases of relevance, overbreadth, and undue burden. Without waiving these objections, Yahoo invoked its right to produce documents in response to an interrogatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a)(2). Yahoo stated in its response that it “will produce documents identifying all refunds and discounts to Advertisers, including the amount and date of the refunds and discounts [but] Yahoo will not . . . identify the Advertisers by name.” (O’Keefe Decl., Ex. D.)

Plaintiff argues that Yahoo should be required to identify the advertisers that received refunds in its response to SI No. 1.

Yahoo bears the burden of justifying its objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) As indicated above, Yahoo filed a consolidated opposition to Plaintiff’s two motions. The consolidated opposition addresses Yahoo’s objections to SI No. 1 in the same section as its objections to RPD Nos. 6 and 11. The arguments on Yahoo’s objection to SI No. 1 are the same as those for its objections to RPD Nos. 6 and 11. Those objections are addressed above, and overruled, in connection with RPD Nos. 6 and 11. Specifically, the Court has found that the names of the advertisers are relevant, that Yahoo failed to justify its undue burden objection, and did not attempt to justify its other objections. For the same reasons, Yahoo’s objections to SI No. 1 are overruled.

Concerning the adequacy of Yahoo’s substantive response, by failing to produce documents identifying the advertisers that received refunds, Yahoo’s exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a)(2), was incomplete.

Based upon the above discussion, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SI No. 1 is GRANTED.

C. SI No. 3

SI No. 3 asks Yahoo to “[d]escribe in full the definition or criteria for the methodology used by YAHOO to derive the TZ Ratings it assigned to traffic generated by LJC.” (O’Keefe Decl., Ex. B, p. 2.) In its response, Yahoo objected on the basis of relevance and provided the following substantive response: “Yahoo is not privy to the criteria or methodology used by Microsoft to determine TQ Ratings, except that TQ Ratings are mainly based on click through and conversion rates.” (Id., Ex. D, pp. 3-4.)

Plaintiff argues that Yahoo’s relevance objection lacks merit. The Court addressed and overruled Yahoo’s objection to the relevance of TQ ratings in connection with RPD Nos. 8 and 14. For the same reasons, Yahoo’s objection to SI No. 3 on the basis of relevance is overruled.

Concerning Yahoo’s substantive response, Plaintiff argues that the response is “impermissibly vague and non-responsive.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, p. 7.) For the reasons below, the Court finds that the response is not code-compliant.

An interrogatory response must be as complete and straightforward as the information available to the responding party permits. (CCP, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) The responding party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons or organizations, and if the responding party lacks sufficient personal knowledge to fully respond to a request, it shall so state. (Id., at subd. (c).)

It is undisputed in this case that the parties executed their agreement in March of 2010. Yahoo’s own papers indicate that Microsoft did not begin assigning TQ ratings until October 2010. In other words, Yahoo presumably did assign TQ ratings for the period between March 2010 when the agreement was executed and October 2010 when Microsoft took over the TQ ratings. Thus, Yahoo’s response that it “is not privy to the criteria or methodology used by Microsoft to determine TQ Ratings” is not “as complete and straightforward” as required by section 2030.200, subdivision (a).

Because Yahoo’s response to SI No. 3 is not code-complaint, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the interrogatory is GRANTED.

D. SI No. 4

SI No. 4 asks Yahoo to “[s]tate all facts that support YAHOO’S contention that it was authorized to reduce/adjust the amount it paid each month to LJC under the Letter Agreement by any amount in connection with the TQ rating assigned by YAHOO.” (O’Keefe Decl., Ex. B, p. 2.) Yahoo objected on the bases of overbreadth and undue burden, and provided the following substantive response: “Yahoo does not contend that the TQ Ratings were the basis of any reduction/adjustment to the amount it paid LJC.” (Id., Ex. D, p. 4.)

Plaintiff argues that Yahoo’s substantive response is inadequate because it does not respond to the question being asked. The Court disagrees. The interrogatory asks for facts supporting Yahoo’s contention that it was authorized to reduce or adjust amounts paid to LJC. Yahoo answered that the TQ ratings were not the basis of any reductions or adjustments in the payments made to LJC. The fact that Plaintiff does not believe Yahoo’s response does not make the response inadequate or non-responsive.

Because Yahoo’s response to SI No. 4 fully responds to the interrogatory, no further response is warranted. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to SI No. 4 is therefore DENIED.

III. Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with each of its motions to compel. Specifically, with regard to its motion to compel further responses to the RPD, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Yahoo in the amount of $2812.50. With regard to its motion to compel further responses to the SI, Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Yahoo in the amount of $2812.50.

Concerning the request accompanying Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its RPD, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (b), as the basis for the request. That section applies to motions to compel compliance—not motions to compel further responses. Because Plaintiff has failed to cite the proper basis for the sanctions it seeks, the request is DENIED. (See California Rules of Court, rule 2.30(c) [“A party’s motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought”], emphasis added.)

Concerning the request accompanying Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its SI, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d). That section provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Plaintiff was not entirely successful in bringing its motion to compel further responses to its SI, as the Court denied the request to compel further responses to SI No. 4. Yahoo was therefore substantially justified in opposing the motion. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with its motion to compel further responses to its SI is therefore DENIED.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RPD is GRANTED as to RPD Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 14, and DENIED AS MOOT as to RPD No. 5. Accordingly, Yahoo shall serve verified, code-compliant further responses, without objection (except for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, which have been preserved) to RPD Nos. 6, 8, 11, and 14, and documents in conformity with those responses, within 20 calendar days of the filing of this Order. To the extent any additional documents are withheld based upon attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product, Yahoo shall also provide a privilege log identifying all documents withheld and providing a factual basis for the privilege claimed.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with its motion to compel further responses to the RPD is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its SI is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to SI Nos. 1 and 3, and DENIED as to SI No. 4. Accordingly, Yahoo shall serve verified, code-compliant further responses without objection to SI Nos. 1 and 3 within 20 calendar days of the filing of this Order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with its motion to compel further responses to the SI is DENIED.