The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on August 18, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff Lingyu Lu (“Plaintiff”) worked as a charge nurse for defendant Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC (“Defendant”) from April 6, 2015 through October 12, 2015. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment Defendant engaged in the following violations of the laws of the State of California: (1) the failure to pay minimum wage and overtime to Plaintiff; (2) the failure to provide uninterrupted meal and rest periods to Plaintiff; (3) the failure to maintain and provide Plaintiff with timely and accurate wage and hour statements; (4) the wrongful withholding of wages and compensation due to Plaintiff; (5) unfair competition; and (6) misclassification of Plaintiff as an exempt employee. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Plaintiff also alleges Defendant frequently required her to work more than eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week without proper compensation. (Complaint, ¶ 21.)

The putative class is defined as “all employees of any of the Defendants who are, have been, or will be employed at California locations of the Defendant in any non-exempt job positions including, but is [sic] not limited to, nurse, attendee, nurse-practitioner, patient intake, and [c]harge nurse, and were so employed during the period of time covered by the statute of limitations application to the particular cause of action in which the terms “Class Members” or “Class” appear, including [the] period of time during which the statute of limitations was or may have been tolled or suspended.” (Complaint, ¶ 3.)

The Complaint, filed on March 21, 2016, sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5) Failure to Furnish Wage and Hour Statements; (6) Failure to Pay Wages and Waiting Time Penalty; and (7) Unfair Competition.

On November 9, 2016, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents (set one) on Defendant. Defendant has since provided responses and supplemental responses. Plaintiff contends the responses are insufficient and now moves to compel further responses. Defendant has filed a motion for a protective order.

II. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

A. Legal Standard

(a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. . . .

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subds. (b), (c).)
B. Discussion
Defendant moves for a protective order. Defendant argues it is entitled to a protective order shielding the production of documents concerning the class on the ground that Plaintiff is an improper class representative thereby lacking standing to obtain the subject discovery. The class definition includes employees who worked “at California locations of the Defendant in any non-exempt job positions.” Defendant contends Plaintiff was correctly classified as exempt during her employment, so is not part of the class of “non-exempt” employees. Defendant argues further that the class definition cannot include both “exempt” and “non-exempt” employees because such a definition is unduly broad.

Defendant’s arguments relate to both the substantive merits of the case and class certification issues. Defendant cites no authority supporting the proposition that the Court can make a substantive determination regarding Plaintiff’s standing or address class certification issues in connection with a discovery motion.

Generally, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) In other words, the standard for obtaining discovery is very broad.

Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff seeks documents related to the putative class. (See Defendant Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Jointly and Severally Against Plaintiff and Counsel, p. 9:19-20.) Defendant does not argue the discovery sought is not relevant to the class claims in the Complaint; Defendant only contends Plaintiff is not entitled to the information because she is an improper class representative. As stated previously, Defendant’s substantive and class certification arguments have no bearing on Plaintiff’s right to discovery. If the requested discovery is relevant to the allegations of the Complaint, then Plaintiff is entitled to receive that discovery absent a valid objection.

The only objection made by Defendant is that the class discovery compromises third party privacy rights. However, Defendant ties its privacy objection to its main argument by stating: “Defendant’s objection on privacy grounds stems from the overall objection to Plaintiff’s class definition, to which she lacks standing, thereby precluding her from seeking such information as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Defendant Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion for a Protective Order Against Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Jointly and Severally Against Plaintiff and Counsel, p. 8:12 15.) Again, this argument is without merit.
Defendant has set forth no reasonable basis for a protective order. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is DENIED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,970 is DENIED.

III. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

A. Legal Standard

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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:
(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

“The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to request for production of documents (set one). Specifically, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, nos. 3-4, 6, 8, 11, 13-16, 23-27, 33-34, 38-71, 78, 80-89, 93, 95, 98, and 103.
Plaintiff argues the discovery requests are related to Plaintiff’s allegations that she is a non-exempt employee of Defendant and was hired as a charge nurse for Defendant. A review of the discovery requests in Plaintiff’s separate statement shows the requests concern the alleged wage and hour claims of Plaintiff and the putative class.

Defendant objects mainly on the ground that the discovery requests are overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the class definition only includes non-exempt employees and Plaintiff was classified as an exempt employee. Defendant argues that regardless of a potential allegation from Plaintiff that she was improperly classified, Plaintiff is not an appropriate representative of the class and lacks standing. Defendant also objects on the ground that the requests implicate third party privacy rights and are vague and ambiguous, but states these objections stem from Defendant’s overall objection to Plaintiff’s class definition and lack of standing.

As discussed in connection with Defendant’s motion for a protective order, Defendant is making substantive and class certification arguments that have no bearing on Plaintiff’s right to discovery. Moreover, even if Defendant believes the requests are somewhat ambiguous, a party responding to discovery requests generally has an obligation to respond to the best of its ability. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 [concerning responses to interrogatories].)

Defendant has failed to justify any proper objection to the discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. To the extent Defendant asserts attorney-client privilege objections, Defendant must provide a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,240 against Defendant and/or its attorneys of record. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Defendant unsuccessfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion, but in the context of this discovery dispute, the Court finds Defendant acted with substantial justification. Reflecting the complicated nature of this dispute, the parties participated in extensive meet and confer discussions and other communications about the disputed discovery, including participating in an informal discovery conference with the Court. Further, the discovery issues were intertwined with requests to amend the Complaint to allege a misclassification cause of action. For these reasons, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions of $4,050 for opposing the motion is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.