2015-00182453-CU-WT

Courtney Amos vs. Education Management Corporation

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Whelan, Christopher H.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production No. 43 is granted.

Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination. Plaintiff propounded Request for Production No. 43 that sought :”Produce all documents referenced in Defendant’s response to Employment Form Interrogatory 201.1(d).” The documents concerned plaintiff’s termination.

Defendant’s Response: “In addition to the Preliminary Statement and General Objects

set forth above, Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that: (1) it is vague, ambiguous and uncertain; (2) it is burdensome and oppressive to the extent the documents requested are already in Plaintiffs possession; (3) it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
and/or the attorney work product doctrine; and (4) it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the right to privacy. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has previously produced all non-privileged responsive documents that have been located following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. (emphasis added)

Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the motions sets forth a number of reasons why defendant’s objections are improper. Defendant’s opposition does not address any of these arguments.

Plaintiff explained in the meet and confer letter that defendant failed to adequately identify the documents that were being withheld. CCP 2031.240(b)(1) requires defendant to identify with particularity any documents that are being withheld. Plaintiff set out this explanation in the meet and confer letter, Ex. 3, page 2)

Defendant’s opposition does not address the substance of the request or their objections but rather contends it should be denied because plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer. Defendant contends in its opposition that counsel was “baffled” by plaintiff’s meet and confer letter and did not understand what further response was required, such that counsel requested a telephone conversation with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel told defense counsel he preferred email correspondence so that the communications could be preserved.

The Court finds that the meet and confer effort was adequate. The defendant’s objections/response to the request was objectionable for the reasons stated in the meet and confer letter. Defendant failed to identify the documents it had had raised

objections to or had previously produced to plaintiff. Defendant contends that it was not until the motion was filed that it understood that plaintiff requested the Bates Nos. of the documents defendant had previously produced to plaintiff. However, the details of how defendant was to respond as to documents previously produced would not have resolved this motion because Defendant did not agree in the opposition to provide further responses, without objections, identifying not only the documents that were previously produced but withheld, by Bates No., nor has it agreed to retract its objections and a further response without objections.

Defendant shall serve a further response to Request #43 on or before March 22, 2018. Defendant shall respond without objections (providing a privilege log if necessary) as well as identify any documents previously produced to plaintiff by bates number.

Sanctions are denied.