Case Name: Graf v. Bay Club San Francisco, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 18CV327978

This is an action for age discrimination and retaliation. On June 8, 2018, plaintiff Lisa Graf (“Plaintiff”) served form interrogatories (“FIs”), special interrogatories (“SIs”), and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) on defendants Bay Club San Francisco, LLC (“Bay Club”), Matthew Stevens (“Stevens”) and Mark Koorenny (“Koorenny”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On July 24, 2018, after multiple extensions of time to provide responses, Defendants provided responses consisting wholly of objections. After meeting and conferring regarding Defendants’ inadequate responses, Defendants promised to provide further substantive responses by August 10, 2018. As Plaintiff did not receive any further responses, Plaintiff now moves for further responses to: FIs 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.1, 13.2, SIs 1-15, and RPDs 1-21 as to defendant Koorenny; FIs 1.1, 3.1-3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.6, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 208.2, 209.2, 211.1, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, 215.2, SIs 1-25, RPDs 1-32 as to defendant Bay Club; and, FIs 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.1, 13.2, SIs 1-3, and RPDs 1-17 as to defendant Stevens.

Plaintiff is admonished for combining three (or nine, depending on how they are counted) discovery motions into a single motion

In the instant motion, Plaintiff moves for further responses to 17 FIs, 15 SIs and 21 RPDs as to all three defendants in a single motion. Motions to compel a further response should be made separately as to the type of discovery, and as to each party. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2020.300. subd.(a), 2031.310, subd.(a).) It is unclear as to why Plaintiff has decided to combine multiple motions into one motion. Combining multiple discovery motions in one motion makes it difficult for the Court to view and analyze. Plaintiff is admonished for combining the multiple forms of discovery in a single motion; and, in the future, the Court may deny such a motion. However, as many of Defendants’ objections are plainly without merit, the Court shall consider Plaintiff’s motion.

Motion as to defendant Bay Club

FI 1.1

This motion seeks information regarding the people who assisted in preparation of the responses to FIs. Bay Club lists counsel Michael Bruno and Hieu T. Williams. Plaintiff asserts a further response is necessary because she needs to know who might prepare any further responses. However, this is not a basis for a motion to compel a further response. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) The motion to compel a further response to FI 1.1 as to defendant Bay Club is DENIED.

FIs 3.1-3.7

FIs 3.1-3.7 seek business entity information regarding Bay Club. Bay Club objects on the grounds that the FI is not relevant, seeks information that is equally available to Plaintiff, and is premature based on the pending demurrer. All of these objections are plainly without merit and are OVERRULED. (See Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436 (stating that objection based on a scheduled demurrer is without substantial justification).) The motion to compel a further response to FIs 3.1-3.7 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 3.1-3.7 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 4.1 and 4.2

FIs 4.1 and 4.2 seek information regarding insurance. Bay Club objects on the grounds that the FIs are vague, not relevant and premature based on the pending demurrer. In opposition to the motion, Bay Club apparently concedes that the FIs are not vague. Bay Club’s objections on the ground that the FIs are not relevant and premature based on the pending demurrer are also without merit. Accordingly, Bay Club’s objections to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 are OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1 and 13.2

FIs 12.1-12.6 seek information regarding witnesses, interviews, recorded statements, videos, photos, diagrams or models, and reports. FIs 13.1 and 13.2 seek information regarding surveillance. Bay Club initially objected to these FIs on the grounds that the FIs are vague, seek privileged information or information protected by the work product doctrine, and is premature based on the pending demurrer. In opposition to the motion, Bay Club apparently concedes that the FIs are not vague and agrees to provide a further response once the demurrer issue is resolved. Bay Club’s objection on the ground that the FIs are premature based on the pending demurrer is without merit and is OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1, and 13.2 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1, and 13.2 within 20 days of notice of this order.

FI 15.1

FI 15.1 seeks information regarding Bay Club’s defenses. Bay Club objects on the ground that the FI is premature based on the pending demurrer. Bay Club’s objection on the ground that the FI is premature based on the pending demurrer is without merit and is OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI 15.1 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to FI 15.1 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.4 and 201.5

FIs 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.4 and 201.5 are employment FIs. Bay Club objects on the ground that the FIs are premature based on the pending demurrer, and that they are vague, ambiguous and compound. These objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FIs 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.4 and 201.5 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.4 and 201.5 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FI 201.6

FI 201.6 seeks information as to employees who have performed Plaintiff’s duties after Plaintiff’s termination. Bay Club objects on the ground that the FI is premature based on the pending demurrer, and that it is vague, ambiguous and compound and invades third party privacy rights. The parties are ordered to present to the Court a stipulated protective order. The Court directs use of the Model Confidentiality Order approved by the Complex Division of this Court. This protective order shall ameliorate concerns regarding third party privacy rights. The other objections are without merit. Accordingly, the objections to FI 201.6 are OVERRULED and the motion to compel a further response to FI 201.6 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to FI 201.6 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 207.1, 207.2, 208.2, 209.2, 214.1 and 214.2

FIs 207.1, 207.2, 208.2, 209.2, 214.1 and 214.2 are more employment FIs. Bay Club objects on the ground that the FIs are premature based on the pending demurrer, and that they are vague, ambiguous and compound, call for a compilation of records and seek information equally available to Plaintiff. As previously stated, these objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FIs 207.1, 207.2, 208.2, 209.2, 214.1 and 214.2 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 207.1, 207.2, 208.2, 209.2, 214.1 and 214.2 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FI 211.1

Bay Club failed to provide a response to FI 211.1. Accordingly, objections to FI 211.1 are waived. The motion to compel a further response to FI 211.1 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to FI 211.1 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 215.1 and 215.2

FIs 215.1 and 215.2 are employment FIs seeking information regarding interviews and recorded statements regarding Plaintiff’s termination. Bay Club objects to FIs 215.1 and 215.2 on the grounds that they are vague, invade third party privacy rights, are premature based on the pending demurrer and seek attorney-client privileged information. The objections based on privacy, vagueness and prematurity are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FIs 215.1 and 215.2 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 215.1 and 215.2 within 20 days of notice of this order.

SIs 1-25

SIs 1-25 seek information regarding Plaintiff’s extension of leave of absence, the investigation of complaints, Plaintiff’s termination, Stevens’ behavior, the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff’s employment, and the value of a Class B Unit in BC Management Member LLC. Bay Club objects to these SIs on the grounds that that they are vague, seek information that is not relevant, seek information protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine, assumes facts not in evidence, violates the privacy rights of third parties and are premature based on the pending demurrer. The objections based on vagueness, relevance, prematurity and assuming facts not in evidence are without merit and are OVERRULED. The objection based on the privacy rights of third parties has been considered, but the protective order that the parties are ordered to enter shall assuage those concerns. Accordingly, the objection based on privacy rights is OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SIs 1-25 as to defendant Bay Club is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to SIs 1-25 within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 1-4

RPDs 1-4 seek documents regarding the personnel file for Plaintiff, Stevens, and Koorenny. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects on the grounds that the RPDs seek information that is not relevant, privacy, assumes facts not in evidence, is premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The objections based on relevance, prematurity and assumes facts not in evidence are without merit and are OVERRULED. Although a person’s personnel files are within a recognized zone of privacy (see Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Super. Ct. (Dong) (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Super. Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.), the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Bay Club identifies, OVERRULED. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 1-4 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 1-4 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 5-7

RPDs 5-7 seeks the employee handbook and documents regarding policies. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects on the ground that it is premature based on the pending demurrer. The objection is without merit and is OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPD 5-7 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 5-7 without objections and responsive documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 8

RPD 8 seeks documents regarding training provided to managers and supervisors on harassment. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects on the grounds that the RPD is vague, overbroad, not relevant, unduly burdensome, compound, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RPD 8 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to RPD 8 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 9-19

RPDs 9-19 seek documents regarding complaints and communications regarding Stevens’ conduct, performance and behavior at Bay Club. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects on the grounds that the requests are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, violative of third party privacy rights, not relevant, assumes facts not in evidence, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Bay Club identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 9-19 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 9-19 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 20-22

RPDs 20-22 seek documents regarding the arbitration agreement and disciplinary action related to a failure to sign the agreement. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects to the RPDs on the grounds that they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, violative of third party privacy rights, compound, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Bay Club identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 20-22 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 20-22 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 23-25

RPDs 23-25 seek documents relating to Plaintiff’s termination. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects on the grounds that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 23-25 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 23-25 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 26 and 27

RPDs 26 and 27 seek documents relating to the value of a Class B Unit in BC Management Member LLC. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents as they directly evidence Plaintiff’s damages. Bay Club objects to the RPDs on the grounds that they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, violative of privacy rights, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant, Bay Club does not identify a basis for the privacy rights, and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order. The objection based on privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests that Bay Club identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 26 and 27 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 26 and 27 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 28

RPD 28 seeks documents reflecting communications between Bay Club and the California Employment Development Department regarding Plaintiff. Good cause is demonstrated for these documents. Bay Club objects to these documents on the ground that the request is not relevant and is premature based on the pending demurrer. Both of these objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further responses to RPD 28 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to RPD 28 without objections and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 29 and 30

RPDs 29 and 30 seek documents referring to any acts of insubordination by Plaintiff and supporting Bay Club’s contention that Plaintiff was not honest when responding to questions regarding the investigation of her complaint regarding Stevens. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Bay Club objects on the grounds that they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Bay Club shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 29 and 30 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 29 and 30 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 31

RPD 31 seeks documents relating to policies of insurance that Bay Club believes may provide coverage against any claims or damages alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Bay Club objects to the documents on the ground that the request is premature based on the pending demurrer. The objection is plainly without merit and is OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RPD 31 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to RPD 31 without objections and responsive documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 32

RPD 32 seeks recordings or transcripts of the meeting and conference calls conducted on February 5, 2018 regarding managers of Bay Club. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the documents as the meeting likely relates to Plaintiff’s termination. Bay Club objects on the ground that the request is vague and premature based on the demurrer. These objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RPD 32 is GRANTED. Bay Club shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to RPD 32 without objections and responsive documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

Motion as to defendant Koorenny

FI 1.1

Koorenny objects to FI 1.1 on the ground that it is premature based on the pending demurrer. This is not a valid objection and it is OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to FIs 1.1 as to defendant Koorenny is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to FIs 1.1 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FI 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8

FI 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 seek information regarding Koorenny’s name and previous names, his birthplace, his address and prior addresses, his employer, his educational background, and his criminal record. Koorenny objects on the grounds that it invades his right to privacy, is not relevant, and is premature based on the pending demurrer. Here, whatever privacy rights Koorenny has as to this information is outweighed by Plaintiff’s right to obtain such information. This objection and the other objections are OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to FIs 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 as to defendant Koorenny is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 4.1 and 4.2

FIs 4.1 and 4.2 seek information regarding insurance. Koorenny objects on the grounds that the FIs are vague, premature based on the pending demurrer and seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. It is unclear as to how these FIs might implicate the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. In opposition to the motion, Koorenny apparently concedes that the FIs are neither vague nor implicate the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege, and instead merely states that he will supplement his response once the demurrer is resolved. Koorenny’s objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 as to defendant Koorenny is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1 and 13.2

FIs 12.1-12.6 seek information regarding witnesses, interviews, recorded statements, videos, photos, diagrams or models, and reports. FIs 13.1 and 13.2 seek information regarding surveillance. Koorenny initially objected to these FIs on the grounds that the FIs are vague, seek privileged information or information protected by the work product doctrine, invades third party privacy rights of witnesses and is premature based on the pending demurrer. Any third party privacy rights as to witnesses is outweighed by the plaintiff’s need to obtain such information regarding those witnesses. In opposition to the motion, Koorenny apparently concedes that the FIs are not vague, do not implicate third party privacy rights and agrees to provide a further response to the extent that non-privileged interviews have occurred once the demurrer issue is resolved. Koorenny’s objections on the ground that the FIs are premature based on the pending demurrer and privacy rights are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1, and 13.2 as to defendant Koorenny is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1, and 13.2 within 20 days of notice of this order.

SIs 1-15

SIs 1-15 seek information from Koorenny regarding his prior litigation experience as a party and a witness, his clientele since January 1, 2015, the amounts paid to him since January 1, 2015 from Bay Club, the amount billed by any law firm with which he was affiliated for work performed since January 1, 2015, amounts paid to him by clients other than Bay Club since January 1, 2015, the percentage of income in 2017 that was derived from work performed by him for Bay Club, information regarding the investigation of complaints by Plaintiff or other employees, any ownership interest Koorenny has in Bay Club, and the type of device used to communicate with any person regarding Plaintiff since January 1, 2016. Koorenny objects to these SIs on the grounds that they are vague, not relevant, seek information equally available to Plaintiff, are premature based on the pending demurrer, are overbroad, seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, violates the privacy rights of him and third parties. Here, to the extent that Koorenny has identified any privacy interests, they are outweighed by the plaintiff’s need to obtain such information. Although Koorenny asserts that “the amount he bills is confidential and proprietary,” or that “his client list is confidential,” such statements do not support a basis for privacy that outweighs the plaintiff’s need for such information. Koorenny also does not articulate a basis as to how the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine would prevent him from answering the SIs. The objections based on privacy, overbreadth, relevance, vagueness, information equally available to Plaintiff, and prematurity are OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to SIs 1-15 as to defendant Koorenny is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to SIs 1-15 within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 1-11 and 13-20

RPDs 1-11 and 13-20 seek documents regarding the investigation of Plaintiff’s and other complaints regarding Stevens and communications between him and Bay Club and York Capital Management regarding Plaintiff and Stevens. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Koorenny objects to these requests on the grounds that requests are vague, overbroad, compound, unduly burdensome, violative of third party privacy rights, not relevant, premature based on the pending demurrer, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Koorenny shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Koorenny identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 1-11 and 13-20 is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 1-11 and 13-20 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 12

RPD 12 seeks transcripts for depositions in which Koorenny has testified. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for any transcripts of depositions that relate to co-defendants Bay Club or Stevens. Koorenny objects to the request on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, violative of third party privacy rights, and premature based on the pending demurrer. As the Court has limited the scope of this request to those involving defendants Bay Club or Stevens, Koorenny’s objections are addressed. The motion to compel a further response to RPD 12 is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to RPD 12 and responsive, non-privileged documents limited to documents that relate to Bay Club or Stevens within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 21

RPD seeks documents relating to Koorenny’s ownership interest in Bay Club. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Koorenny objects to these documents on the grounds that the request is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, violative of his right of privacy, and is premature based on the pending demurrer. As to Koorenny’s objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on his right of privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Koorenny identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPD 21 is GRANTED. Koorenny shall provide a verified, code-compliant further response to RPD 21 without objections and responsive documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

The motion as to Stevens

FI 1.1

This motion seeks information regarding the people who assisted in preparation of the responses to FIs. Stevens lists counsel Michael Bruno and Hieu T. Williams. Plaintiff asserts a further response is necessary because she needs to know who might prepare any further responses. However, this is not a basis for a motion to compel a further response. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) Parties are always required to update their discovery responses should new information become available as those discovery responses can be used on a motion for summary judgment. The motion to compel a further response to FI 1.1 as to defendant Stevens is DENIED.

FI 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8

FI 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 seek information regarding Stevens’ name and previous names, his birthplace, his address and prior addresses, his employer, his educational background, and his criminal record. Stevens objects on the grounds that it invades his right to privacy, is not relevant, and is premature based on the pending demurrer. Here, whatever privacy rights Stevens has as to this information is outweighed by Plaintiff’s right to obtain such information. This objection and the other objections are OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to FIs 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 as to defendant Stevens is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 4.1 and 4.2

FIs 4.1 and 4.2 seek information regarding insurance. Stevens objects on the grounds that the FIs are vague, premature based on the pending demurrer and not relevant. In opposition to the motion, Stevens apparently concedes that the FIs are neither vague nor irrelevant, and instead merely states that he will supplement his response once the demurrer is resolved. Stevens’ objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 as to defendant Stevens is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 4.1 and 4.2 without objections within 20 days of notice of this order.

FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1 and 13.2

FIs 12.1-12.6 seek information regarding witnesses, interviews, recorded statements, videos, photos, diagrams or models, and reports. FIs 13.1 and 13.2 seek information regarding surveillance. Stevens initially objected to these FIs on the grounds that the FIs are vague, seek privileged information or information protected by the work product doctrine, invades third party privacy rights of witnesses and is premature based on the pending demurrer. Any third party privacy rights as to witnesses is outweighed by the plaintiff’s need to obtain such information regarding those witnesses. In opposition to the motion, Stevens apparently concedes that the FIs are not vague, do not implicate third party privacy rights and agrees to provide a further response to the extent that non-privileged interviews have occurred once the demurrer issue is resolved. Stevens’ objections on the ground that the FIs are premature based on the pending demurrer and privacy rights are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1, and 13.2 as to defendant Stevens is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to FIs 12.1-12.6, 13.1, and 13.2 within 20 days of notice of this order.

SIs 1 and 2

SIs 1 and 2 seek information regarding Stevens’ prior litigation and deposition experience. Stevens objects to these SIs on the grounds that they are overbroad, burdensome, not relevant, seek information equally available to Plaintiff, and is premature based on the pending demurrer. These objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SIs 1 and 2 as to defendant Stevens is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to SIs 1 and 2 within 20 days of notice of this order.

SI 3

SI 3 seeks the identification of the type of device used to communicate with any person regarding Plaintiff since January 1, 2016. Stevens objected to the SI on the ground that it is overbroad, burdensome, not relevant, violative of privacy rights, and premature based on the pending demurrer. In weighing Stevens’ asserted privacy rights in the types of device that he may have utilized in communicating with anyone about Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s right to obtain such information, the Court finds that Stevens’ privacy rights are inferior to Plaintiff’s rights to obtain such information. Accordingly, Stevens’ objection based on his right of privacy is OVERRULED. Additionally, the remaining objections are also without merit and OVERRULED. The motion to compel a further response to SI 3 as to defendant Stevens is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to SI 3 within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 1-6

RPDs 1-6 seek documents regarding communications between Stevens and Koorenny, York Capital Management, Bay Club, regarding Plaintiff or Megan Devlin-Preiksa since January 1, 2016. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Stevens objects to these requests on the grounds that requests are overbroad, burdensome, violative of third party privacy rights, not relevant and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Stevens shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Stevens identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 1-6 is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 1-6 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPD 7

RPD 7 seeks deposition transcripts in which Stevens has testified. Here, Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the documents as Stevens’ deposition testimony is likely to be limited, and pertinent to the instant action. Stevens objects to the request on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant and violative of third party privacy rights. Here, it is unclear as to how third parties’ privacy rights would be implicated; regardless, such rights would be protected as the protective order would ameliorate any such concerns. The other objections are without merit. Accordingly, the objections are OVERRULED and the motion to compel a further response to RPD 7 is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPD 7 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RFPs 8-14

RFPs 8-14 seek documents regarding complaints by Bay Club employees regarding Stevens. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Stevens objects on the grounds that they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, compound, not relevant, violative of third party privacy, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Stevens shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order; the objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests Stevens identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 8-14 is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 8-14 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

RPDs 15-17

RPDs 15-17 seek documents regarding Stevens’ ownership interest in Bay Club, and the value of a Class B Unit in BC Management Member LLC. Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for these documents. Stevens objects on the grounds that they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, violative of Bay Club’s right to privacy, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. As to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as to any documents withheld based on those objections, Stevens shall provide a privilege log with sufficient detail so that Plaintiff may evaluate the merits of the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).); see also Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.)(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1619 (stating that “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the claimed privilege”); see also Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130 (stating that “[t]he information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not fact privileged”).) As to the objection based on privacy, the information sought by the RPDs are directly relevant and the protective order shall ameliorate any concerns regarding privacy rights as these documents shall be produced and labeled with an “Attorneys Eyes Only” designation pursuant to the protective order. Moreover, a corporation’s right to privacy is not constitutional. (See Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 791-797; see also SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Western Albuquerque Land Holdings, LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-756.) The objection based on third party privacy is thus, after weighing the countervailing interests that Stevens identifies, OVERRULED. All other objections are without merit and are also OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RPDs 15-17 is GRANTED. Stevens shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses to RPDs 15-17 and responsive, non-privileged documents within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions

In connection with her motion to compel further responses, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against defendants Bay Club, Stevens and Koorenny in the amount of $15,710. The request is code-compliant and Plaintiff has substantially prevailed. Despite Defendants’ arguments that they have acted with substantial justification, there are no such facts present here. Defendants largely argue that they have repeatedly informed Plaintiff that it has not engaged in substantive discovery to avoid waiving the right to arbitrate and that they were willing to provide supplemental responses after the demurrer and arbitration issues were resolved. As previously stated, that is not a basis for failing to provide further responses. It should also be noted that there was a substantial amount of discovery requests at issue here. The motion could and should have been separated into nine separate motions. The Court shall reduce the amount of sanctions based on this failure by Plaintiff to so file separate motions, likely in an attempt to avoid fees. Defendants shall pay counsel for Plaintiff $6,500 within 20 calendar days of notice of this order.

The Court will prepare the Order.