Martin Abdollahi v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. CASE NO. 113CV252969
DATE: 18 April 2014 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 18
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 17 April 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 18 April 2014, the motion of plaintiff Martin Abdollahi to compel further responses to special interrogatories (“SI”), requests for admission (“RFA”), and requests for production of documents (“RPD”) and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted. Defendant P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. filed a formal opposition to the motion.

Statement of Facts

This is a food poisoning case. The operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleges that plaintiff Martin Abdollahi (“Plaintiff”) and his aunt, Arezzo Abdollahi, consumed a scallop dish at defendant P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (“Defendant”) in Sunnyvale, California (“the Sunnyvale location”) on 16 June 2013. A few hours later, Plaintiff and his aunt suffered diarrhea and vomiting. Plaintiff was taken to Kaiser Santa Clara and the evaluating doctor opined that he likely suffered from food poisoning. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) strict liability; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of warranty.

Discovery Dispute

On 8 January 2014, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant a first set of SI, RFA, and RPD. Defendant served timely responses on 11 February 2014, which consisted almost entirely of objections.

On 19 February 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel outlining the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses and requesting that Defendant provide full and complete responses to the discovery requests by 28 February 2014, otherwise Plaintiff would proceed with filing a motion to compel further responses. Defendant did not respond to the 19 February 2014 meet and confer letter.

On 25 March 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to SI, RFA, and RPD and for an award of monetary sanctions. On 7 April 2014, Defendant filed opposition papers. Plaintiff filed a reply on 15 April 2014.

Discussion

I. Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the declaration of Arezzo Abdollahi filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike on 21 January 2014.

A court may take judicial notice of court records that are relevant to a pending issue. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Stepan v. Garcia (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 497, 500; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.)

The declaration of Arezzo Abdollahi is a court record. While the declaration contains statements regarding the 16 June 2013 incident which are generally relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, it is not relevant to the discovery issues addressed in the instant motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to SI, RFA, and RPD

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to SI Nos. 2-18, 21-37, and 40-43, RFA Nos. 1-12 and 14-17, and RPD Nos. 1-24 and 26.

A. Meet and Confer

Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer because Plaintiff’s counsel sent only one letter addressing the discovery dispute on 19 February 2014.

A motion to compel a further response must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration that sets forth facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b), 2033.290, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd., (b)(2).) A determination as to whether attempts at informal resolution were adequate depends upon the particular circumstances and involves the exercise of discretion. (See Obregon v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 431.)

Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter on 19 February 2014. The letter is approximately 7 pages long and addressed the perceived deficiencies of each of the discovery requests at issue in the instant motion. Defendant failed to respond to the meet and confer letter, and does not offer any explanation for its failure to respond. While it would have been reasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to follow-up on his 19 February 2014 correspondence in the absence of any response, Plaintiff’s decision to file the motion to compel in light of Defendant’s failure to respond was not unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied his meet and confer obligation.

B. SI Nos. 2-18, 21-37, and 40-43

Plaintiff argues that further responses are warranted to SI Nos. 2-18, 21-37, and 40-43 because Defendant’s objections are without merit and the substantive responses provided are incomplete and/or evasive.

1. Legal Standard

The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems: (1) an answer is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate; and/or (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The party objecting to a discovery request bears the burden of explaining and justifying the objections. (See Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

2. Analysis

a. SI No. 2

SI No. 2 asks Defendant to identify documents and witnesses with information relating to Defendant’s ownership interest in the Sunnyvale location. Defendant objected to the SI on the grounds that it is burdensome, oppressive, and seeks irrelevant information.

In its opposition to the motion to compel, Defendant argues that SI No. 2 is overbroad, burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information. Defendant did not assert an overbroad objection in is original response to the SI. Therefore, it waived this basis for objection and cannot now assert it for the first time in opposition to a motion to compel. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 263, 273 [waiver occurs where the responding party fails to timely raise an objection in its initial response]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2) [responses shall set forth any objections].)

With regard to its burdensome objection, Defendant asserts that it has “undergone several corporate changes over the past several years” and, further, it “has already provided plaintiff with verified evidence of ownership of the P.F. Chang’s China Bistro in Sunnyvale, California.” (See Def. Sep. Stmt. SI., p. 2:8-13.) Defendant’s general statement that it has undergone corporate changes during the past several years is insufficient to support its burdensome objection because it does make a particularized showing of facts demonstrating hardship. (See West Pico Furniture Co. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) Furthermore, Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an objection might be successfully interposed to an interrogatory on the sole ground that the information was previously provided to Plaintiff. Thus, this objection is overruled.

With regard to its relevancy objection, Defendant provides a single conclusory sentence stating that “[t]he information will not lead to information concerning plaintiff’s ingestion of seafood.” (See Def. Sep. Stmt. SI., p. 2:12-13.) Thus, Defendant fails to adequately support its argument and, moreover, Plaintiff persuasively argues that Defendant is the parent corporation of the Sunnyvale location and, therefore, the ownership relationship between the two is relevant to the instant case to establish liability of the parent corporation for the actions of the Sunnyvale location. Thus, the relevancy objection is overruled.

Accordingly, all of Defendant’s objections are overruled and a further response to SI, No. 2 is warranted.

b. SI Nos. 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18

SI Nos. 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 seek information about facts, documents, and witnesses regarding Defendant’s system for recording claims of food-related illness, claims and/or complaints of food-related illness made against Defendant, and lawsuits filed about food-related illness against Defendant in 2013. Defendant objected to the SI as overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, and oppressive.

In its opposition, Defendant defends only its objections based on over breath and irrelevance. Consequently, the undefended objections are overruled. (See Coy v. Super. Ct., supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 220-221.)

Defendant argues that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” as defined in each of these requests are overbroad because they include all of its restaurants throughout the world even though the single incident at issue in this case occurred at the Sunnyvale location. In the definitions accompanying Plaintiff’s SI, Plaintiff defines “YOU” and “YOUR” to include Defendant and all of Defendant’s “present and former officers, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, agents, representatives and all other persons purporting to act on its behalf, and all of its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors, or successors in interest.” (See Abdollahi Dec., Ex. , p. 1-2.) Defendant asserts that the terms encompass all of the 470 restaurants within the United States and 27 restaurants internationally that it operates. In addition, Defendant argues that the terms as defined encompass other entities which are unrelated to the case, such as its subsidiary Pei Wei Asian Diner, LLC, which operates an additional 197 diners within the United States and 27 diners internationally. Plaintiff does not directly address this argument in his reply.

As Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s definition is overbroad as it would require Defendant to provide information about entities related to it that are not involved in this action in any way. Accordingly, Defendant’s over breadth objection as to SI Nos. 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 is meritorious and sustained. Thus, no further responses are required to SI Nos. 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18.

c. SI Nos. 13-16

SI Nos. 13-16 seek information regarding facts, documents, and witness for each claim of food-related illness made against the Sunnyvale location from 16 June 2009 to the present, as well as communications made to the Sunnyvale location in June 2013 about food-related illness caused by seafood. Defendant objected to the SI on the grounds of over breadth and irrelevance. Defendant further objected on the basis that the SI call for an improper expert opinion and violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 regarding expert identification and the production of expert’s reports.

Defendant defends all of its objections in its opposition to the motion to compel. First, Defendant contends that the SI inappropriately seek an expert opinion because they request information about claims of “food-related illness” which involve medical diagnoses and symptoms. However, SI Nos. 13 and 15 seek only facts that pertain to claims or communications made about food-related illness and, thus, do not call for an expert opinion. SI Nos. 14 and 16 seek the identity of documents and persons with knowledge of the pertinent facts, but do not appear to seek the disclosure of any expert opinion or report. Thus, this objection is overruled.

Second, Defendant argues that the SI are overbroad and irrelevant because they call for 5 years of information regarding prior claims. Defendant contends that information from 5 years ago is too remote to be relevant to the subject matter of the instant case. In Minder v. Cielito Lindo Restaurant (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 1003, 1008, the Court of Appeal identified categories of evidence it found “helpful in proving, or disproving, causation in food poisoning cases,” including evidence that others “who ate the same food at approximately the same time” also became ill. SI Nos. 15 and 16 seek information regarding communications about other persons who suffered from food-related illnesses during the month of June in 2013 which is relevant to establish whether Plaintiff became ill due to food consumed at the Sunnyvale location. Thus, Defendant’s over breadth objection to SI Nos. 15 and 16 is overruled.

Conversely, SI Nos. 13 and 14 seek information about claims of food-related illness from up to 5 years before the incident. While prior claims of food-related illness are relevant to the instant case, the Court agrees with Defendant that the 5-year time period is overbroad. However, information about the claims of food-related illness made during June 2013 would be helpful in proving causation and is therefore relevant. Defendant’s over breadth objection to SI Nos. 13 and 14 is sustained insofar as they request information about claims made during the 5 years prior to the incident and overruled insofar as they request information about claims of food-related illness made during June 2013.

Accordingly, further responses to SI Nos. 13-16 are warranted.

d. SI Nos. 5-10

SI Nos. 5-10 ask Defendant if it contends that Plaintiff did not suffer particular symptoms as a result of the incident and if it contends that statements in Plaintiff’s medical records are incorrect. Defendant is also asked to identify documents and persons with information about its contentions. Defendant objected to the SI on the grounds that they call for an improper expert opinion and violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 regarding expert identification and the production of expert’s reports.

In its opposition, Defendant argues that SI Nos. 5-10 are overbroad and seek an improper expert opinion. Defendant failed to assert the overbroad objections in its original responses to the SI and, therefore, waived this basis for objection. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 263; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).)

With regard to its objection that the SI improperly call for premature expert identification and expert opinions, Defendant asserts that answers to the questions require expert opinions regarding Plaintiff’s medical diagnoses and symptoms. However, contention interrogatories are a permissible method of discovery. (See Burke v. Super. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 283-285.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.310, subdivision (b) states that “[a]n interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based” and is not objectionable because an answer to it is based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Thus, this objection is overruled.

Accordingly, further responses to SI Nos. 5-10 are warranted.

e. SI Nos. 21-28

SI Nos. 21-28 ask Defendant to state facts and identify documents and persons with information regarding Defendant’s communications about Plaintiff and the incident, as well as the Sunnyvale location’s communications about Plaintiff and the incident. Defendant objected to the SI on grounds that they violate the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

In its opposition to the motion to compel, Defendant argues that SI Nos. 21-28 are overbroad and seek information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Defendant failed to assert overbroad objections in its original responses to the SI and, therefore, waived this basis for objection. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., supra 59 Cal. App. 4th 263; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).)

With regard to the objection based on the work product doctrine, Defendant is not being asked to produce protected documents for inspection, but to identify the existence of responsive documents. The law is settled that the mere identification of documents typically does not implicate the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. (See Hernandez v. Super. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.) With regard to the objection based on the attorney-client privilege, it is possible that some privileged communications may be encompassed by the request, but Defendant has not identified what specific communications are purportedly privileged. Absent such information, the Court cannot determine whether the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is proper. Thus, the objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are overruled.

Accordingly, further responses to SI Nos. 21-28 are warranted.

f. SI Nos. 29-37

SI Nos. 29-37 are actually form interrogatories framed as special interrogatories that ask for information about a wide variety of subjects including: witnesses; statements; reports; documents in Defendant’s possession regarding Plaintiff’s medical condition; Defendant’s contentions; and any qualified admissions made by Defendant in response to RFA. All of the SI contain multiple subparts. In its responses to the SI, Defendant objected on the ground that they violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f) which prohibits the use of subparts or compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive questions.

In its opposition, Defendant objects to SI Nos. 29-37, in part, because they violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030, subdivision (a) which restricts a party to 35 SI. Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff’s declaration of necessity is insufficient because the information sought by the SI is irrelevant and overbroad. Defendant failed to assert these objections in its original responses to the SI and, therefore, the objections are waived. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 263; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).) Moreover, if Defendant believed that the SI propounded in excess of 35 were unwarranted, it should have sought a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090.

With regard to its objection to the form of the SI, Defendant argues that the SI violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f) because they contain subparts. Plaintiff argues that the form of the SI is proper because they are a “verbatim recitation” of the judicial council form interrogatories and each question addresses a single subject. It is unclear to the Court why Plaintiff chose to propound these questions as SI versus form interrogatories. While the subpart format used to be commonplace, it is now only permissible in form interrogatories. (See Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter Group 2012) at 8:976). Plaintiff also argues that the rule against subparts and compound and/or conjunctive questions should only apply where more than a single subject is covered by the question.

While Plaintiff is correct that the rule against subparts should only apply where more than a single subject is covered by the question (see id.), SI Nos. 29, 32-35, and 37 each involve multiple subjects. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277 [the purpose of the prohibition against compound questions and subparts is to prevent questions worded so as to require more information than could be obtained by 35 separate questions].) SI No. 29 involves: the identification of witnesses who saw the incident and/or events occurring immediately before or after the incident; the identification of witnesses who made statements at the scene of the incident; the identification of witnesses who heard any statements made about the incident by an individual at the scene; and identification of anyone acting on Defendant’s behalf with knowledge of the incident. SI No. 32 involves: the identification of persons whom Defendant contends contributed to the incident; the identification of persons whom Defendant contends contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and/or damages; and the identification of documents that support any of the contentions made. SI No. 33 involves the identification of facts, documents, and witnesses that support the contention that Plaintiff was not injured in the incident. Similarly, SI No. 34 involves the identification of facts, documents, and witnesses that support the contention that the injuries sustained by Plaintiff were not caused by the incident. SI No. 35 involves the identification of services provided by healthcare providers which Defendant contends were not due to the incident, as well as facts, witnesses, and documents that support Defendant’s contention for each service that is contested. Finally, SI No. 37 involves the identification of unqualified admissions made in response to RFA propounded by Plaintiff, as well as facts, witness, and documents that support each unqualified admission identified. Since the SI request more information than could reasonably be obtained from 35 SI alone, the subparts in SI Nos. 29, 32-35, and 37 effectively undermine Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f). Therefore, Defendant’s objection is sustained with regard to SI Nos. 29, 32-35, and 37.

In contrast, SI Nos. 30-31, and 36 each involve only a single subject and, therefore, do not undermine Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f). SI No. 30 involves the identification of written or recorded statements obtained about the incident. SI No. 31 involves the identification of reports made about the incident. SI No. 36 involves the identification of documents from healthcare providers which concern Plaintiff’s physical and mental condition. Thus, Defendant’s objection is overruled with regard to SI Nos. 30-31, and 36.

Accordingly, further responses are warranted to SI Nos. 30-31, and 36 and no further responses are warranted to SI Nos. 29, 32-35, and 37.

g. SI No. 40

SI No. 40 asks Defendant to provide all facts regarding its communications with any vendor about food-related illness in 2013. Defendant objected to the SI as calling for an improper expert opinion and/or premature disclosure of experts and their reports.

In its opposition to the motion to compel, Defendant defends the objections made in its response to SI No. 40 and also argues that the question as overbroad. Defendant failed to assert the overbroad objection in its original response and, therefore, the objection is waived. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 263; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).)

Defendant argues that the SI seeks expert opinions and reports which are protected under the attorney work product doctrine. However, Defendant is asked only to identify facts and not to produce any documents or any communications that may be privileged. (See Hernandez v. Super. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293 [existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged].) Moreover, Defendant does not establish the communications which it believes would be protected by the work product doctrine and therefore has failed to adequately justify this objection. Thus, the objection is overruled and a further response to SI No. 40 is warranted.

h. SI Nos. 41-43

SI Nos. 41-43 ask Defendant to identify all facts, documents, and persons with knowledge about its or the Sunnyvale location’s communications with vendors about food-related illness in 2013. Defendant responded to the SI as follows: “Not applicable.” (See Def. Sep. Stmt. SI., p. 34-36.)

In its separate statement, Defendant argues that the SI are overbroad and seek information protected by the work product doctrine. Since Defendant failed to assert these objections in its original responses, the objections are waived. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 263; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).)

Defendant’s substantive response to the SI is incomplete and evasive. Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a)(1).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (Id. at subd. (a)(2).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to fully respond, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons or organizations. (Id. at subd. (a)(3).) Defendant’s response to the SI of “[n]ot applicable” is not straightforward and fails to provide a responsive answer to the SI. To the extent that Defendant does not have personal knowledge of any responsive information, it should have so stated. Accordingly, further responses to SI Nos. 41-43 are warranted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the SI is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to compel further response to SI Nos. 2, 5-10, 13-14 (insofar as they request information about claims of food-related illness made during June 2013),15-16, 21-28, 30-31, 36 and 40-43. The motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to compel further responses to SI Nos. 3-4, 11, 17-18, 29, 32-35, and 37.

C. RFA Nos. 1-12 and 14-17

Plaintiff argues that further responses are warranted to RFA Nos. 1-12 and 14-17 because Defendant’s objections are without merit and the substantive responses provided are incomplete and/or evasive.

1. Legal Standard

The party propounding requests for admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems: (1) an answer is evasive or incomplete; and/or (2) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).) The party objecting to a discovery request bears the burden of explaining and justifying the objections. (See Coy v. Super. Ct., supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 220-221.)

2. Analysis

a. RFA Nos. 1-6, 8, and 10

RFA Nos. 1-6 ask Defendant to admit facts concerning whether Plaintiff suffered a food-related illness as a result of dining at the Sunnyvale location and sustained certain enumerated injuries from the. RFA Nos. 8 and 10 ask Defendant to admit that customers other than Plaintiff have made claims against it for food-related illness from 16 June 2009 to the present and filed lawsuits against it as a result of food-related illness in 2013. Defendant objected to the RFA on the ground that they call for an improper expert opinion.

In its opposition, Defendant defends its objection and argues that the RFA seek information concerning Plaintiff’s medical diagnoses and the symptoms that he suffered while in the hospital. Defendant contends that the medical information sought requires the opinion of a medical doctor and therefore constitutes a protected expert opinion.

While the causation of a medical injury is an issue that may call for expert testimony, Defendant is required to answer requests for admission with reference to sources reasonably available to it, including its experts. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c); Chodos v. Super. Ct. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 322 [objections that requests for admission called for an expert opinion lacked merit].) Consequently, this objection lacks merit. To the extent that Defendant has not retained an expert, it may lack knowledge sufficient to respond to these RFA. Regardless, Defendant must provide further responses in which it makes it clear that it has responded to the RFA as completely and straightforwardly as all the information currently available to it permits. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) Accordingly, further responses to RFA 1-6, 8, and 10 are warranted.

b. RFA Nos. 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16

RFA Nos. 7, 9, 14, and 16 ask Defendant to admit that customers other than Plaintiff have made claims of food-related illness or filed lawsuits against it in 2013 and that it maintains a system for recording claims and/or communications of food-related illness. RFA Nos. 11 and 12 ask Defendant to admit that it has communicated with other persons and obtained written and/or recorded statements regarding the incident. Defendant objected to the RFA as overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, and oppressive. Defendant also objected to RFA Nos. 11 and 12 on the basis that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

In its opposition to the motion to compel, Defendant defends only its objections based on over breath and irrelevance. Consequently, the undefended objections are overruled. (See Coy v. Super. Ct., supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 220-221.)

With regard to its over breadth and irrelevance objections, Defendant again argues that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” in each of the RFA are overbroad and, thus, the RFA seek irrelevant information. In the definitions accompanying Plaintiff’s RFA, the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” are defined such that they encompass hundreds of Defendant’s restaurants and from subsidiaries which have no connection to the instant case. (See Abdollahi Dec., Ex. C., p. 1-2.) Accordingly, Defendant’s over breadth objection as to RFA Nos. 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16 is meritorious and sustained. Thus, no further responses are required to RFA Nos. 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16.

c. RFA Nos. 15 and 17

RFA Nos. 15 and 17 ask Defendant to admit that the Sunnyvale location maintains a system for recording claims and communications concerning food-related illnesses. Defendant objected to the RFA as over broad and irrelevant.

In its opposition, Defendant generally argues that the RFA call for the disclosure of matters so remote from the subject matter of the action as to make their disclosure of little or no practical value. Beyond this conclusory statement, Defendant provides no additional explanation as to why RFA Nos. 15 and 17 are overbroad. Plaintiff persuasively argues that information as to whether the Sunnyvale location maintained a system for recording claims or communications regarding food-related illness could reasonably lead to admissible evidence such as whether other customers suffered from food-related illness around the same time as him. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790; Minder v. Cielito Lindo Restaurant (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 1003, 1008.) Thus, Defendant’s objection is overruled and further responses are warranted to RFA Nos. 15 and 17.

3. Conclusion

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFA is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to compel further response to RFA Nos.1-6, 8, 10, 15, and 17. The motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16.

D. RPD Nos. 1-24 and 26

Plaintiff argues that further responses are warranted to RPD Nos. 1-24 and 26 because Defendant’s objections are without merit and the substantive responses provided do not contain code-complaint statements of compliance or inability to comply.

1. Legal Standard

A party propounding a request for production may move for an order compelling a further response if it deems that a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a)(1) and (3).) It is the moving party’s burden to demonstrate good cause for the discovery sought. (See Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Good cause is shown by setting forth both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Id.) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Id.)

2. Good Cause

RPD Nos. 1-24 and 26 request documents relating to: documents identified in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s SI; vendors from whom the Sunnyvale location purchased or acquired seafood in June 2013; Plaintiff’s and other individuals’ purchase(s) of food products from the Sunnyvale location on 16 June 2013; Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff did not suffer a food-related illness and/or was not injured as a result of purchasing food from it on 16 June 2013; claims and lawsuits about food-related illness brought by customers against the Sunnyvale location from 16 June 2009 to the present; communications with customers regarding food-related illness in 2013; claims and/or lawsuits about food-related illness brought by customers against Defendant in 2013; Defendant’s system for recording communications and/or claims of food-related illness; Defendant’s communications with persons regarding Plaintiff and the incident; and written and/or recorded statements and reports about the incident

Discovery is allowed for any matters that are not privileged, relevant to the action, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (See Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Plaintiff contends that each of the RPD seeks relevant information. Documents concerning vendors from whom the Sunnyvale location purchased or acquired seafood during June 2013 are relevant because this action arises from Plaintiff’s alleged consumption of defective scallops on 16 June 2013 and the identity of the vendor is needed to establish causation. Documents pertaining to writings that Defendant identified in other discovery responses are relevant because Defendant identified such writings as containing relevant information. Documents concerning Plaintiff’s and other individuals’ purchase(s) of food products from the Sunnyvale location on 16 June 2103 are necessary to establish causation for Plaintiff’s illness and to identify other claims of food-related illness made during the same approximate time period. Similarly, documents relating to communications, claims, and/or lawsuits about food-related illness made against the Sunnyvale location and Defendant are relevant because they may lead to the discovery of additional claims of food-related illness around the time Plaintiff allegedly sustained his injuries or information regarding Defendant’s knowledge of defective food preparation practices. Documents supporting Defendant’s contentions that Plaintiff did not suffer enumerated injuries are necessary to assist Plaintiff in evaluating the merits of his case and preparing for trial. Since Plaintiff has articulated legitimate reasons for the discovery sought, good cause exists.

3. Sufficiency of the Responses

a. RPD Nos. 1, 2 and 24

RPD No. 1 requests all documents identified in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s SI, set one. RPD No. 24 requests all documents to and/or from vendors from whom the Sunnyvale location purchased or acquired seafood in June 2013. Defendant’s responses to RPD Nos. 1 and 24 state that it “has made a diligent search for the requested documents” and then refers the reader to “See Exhibit A.” (See Def. Sep. Stmt. RPD., p. 2, 20.) RPD No. 2 requests all documents relating to Plaintiff’s purchase of food products from the Sunnyvale location on 16 June 2013. Defendant’s response states that it has made a diligent search and ascertained that the requested documents may be in storage. Defendant also stated that it would update “response is [sic] it locates the item.” (See Def. Sep. Stmt. RPD., p. 2.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are incomplete as they do not contain a code-compliant statement of compliance or inability to comply. Defendant argues only it has “already responded” to RPD Nos. 1, 2 and 24. (See Def. Sep. Stmt. RPD., p. 2, 20.) Defendant’s responses are incomplete because they do not contain a code-compliant statement of compliance. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 states that a code-compliant statement of compliance must include a statement that the production will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. However, Defendant’s responses to RPD Nos. 1 and 24 merely asserts that Defendant has performed a diligent search. Similarly, Defendant’s response to RPD No. 2 is incomplete because it does not contain a code-compliant statement of compliance, but merely asserts that Defendant has performed a diligent search and ascertained that responsive documents may be located in storage. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2031.220.) Defendant did not state that the production will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. Thus, further responses are warranted to RPD No. 1, 2 and 24.

b. RPD No. 3

RPD No. 3 requests all documents relating to any purchase of seafood from the Sunnyvale location on 16 June 2013. In its response, Defendant objected to the RPD on the ground that it violates its client’s right to privacy.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objection based on privacy is without merit because a protective order redacting sensitive information or producing responsive documents subject to an attorney’s eyes only designation would adequately address Defendant’s privacy concerns. Plaintiff asserts that it is not interested in commercially sensitive information and the sole purpose of the request is to obtain evidence which may lead to other instances of food poisoning which occurred on the night of his illness. In its opposition, Defendant argues only that “Plaintiff seeks a blanket production of defendant’s customers’ financial information in violation of their right to privacy.” (See Def. Sep. Stmt. RPD., p. 3.) The burden is on Defendant to justify its objection based on third party privacy rights and Defendant’s single conclusory statement that the RPD implicates privacy concerns of third parties is insufficient to meet its burden. (See San Diego Professional Ass’n v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 194, 199; Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter Group 2012) at 8:814). In particular, Defendant has not demonstrated that its clients possesses a “legally protected privacy interest” in the information sought or that their expectation of privacy is reasonable under the particular circumstances. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37.) Thus, a further response to RPD No. 3 is warranted.

c. RPD Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 11

RPD Nos. 4 and 5 request all documents relating to Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff did not suffer a food-related illness and was not injured as a result of purchasing food from it on 16 June 2013. RPD Nos. 9 and 11 request all documents relating to any claims and lawsuits about food-related illness brought by customers against the Sunnyvale location from 16 June 2009 to the present. Defendant objected to the RPD on the ground that they call for an improper expert opinion and violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections based on the grounds that the RPD call for an improper expert opinion and/or premature disclosure of expert identities and reports are without merit. Defendant attempts to justify its objections and argues that the RPD request information regarding food-related illness and medical diagnoses and symptoms which require an expert opinion and any report containing the expert’s opinion or identity is protected from disclosure. However, Defendant does not indicate that it has retained any expert in this matter such that his or her identity or opinion would be privileged. (See Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser (1999) 22 Cal. 4th 31, 37 [the identity and opinions of a party’s retained experts are generally privileged unless they are going to testify at trial].) In addition, Defendant does not identify any documents which contain expert opinions that would be protected under the work product doctrine. (See Hernandez v. Super. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 297 [opinions of experts who have not been designated as trial witnesses are protected by the attorney work product rule].) The fact that the documents requested relate to “food-related illness” or other medical terms does not in and of itself demonstrate that an expert opinion is involved. Thus, Defendant’s objection is overruled and further responses to RPD Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 11 are warranted.

d. RPD Nos. 6, 8, 16, 20, and 22

RPD Nos. 6 and 8 request all documents relating to communications with customers regarding food-related illness in 2013 as well as claims of food-related illness brought by customers against Defendant in 2013. RPD Nos. 16 and 20 request documents relating to and maintained within Defendant’s system for recording claims of food-related illness. RPD No. 22 requests all documents maintained in Defendant’s system for recording communications about food-related illness. Defendant objected to the RPD as overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, and oppressive.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections to the RPD are without merit. In its opposition, Defendant attempts to justify only its objections based on over breadth and irrelevancy. Consequently, the undefended objections are overruled. (See Coy v. Super. Ct., supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 220-221.)

With regard to its over breadth and irrelevance objections, Defendant argues that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” in each of the RPD are overbroad and, thus, the RPD seek irrelevant information. (See Abdollahi Dec., Ex. B., p. 1-2.) As noted previously, the terms as defined by Plaintiff encompass hundreds of Defendant’s restaurants and subsidiaries which have no connection to the instant case. Accordingly, Defendant’s over breadth objection as to RPD Nos. 6, 8, 16, 20, and 22 is meritorious and sustained. Thus, no further responses are required to RPD Nos. 6, 8, 16, 20, and 22.

e. RPD No. 7

RPD No. 7 requests all documents related to communications from the Sunnyvale location with customers regarding food-related illness from 16 June 2009 to the present. Defendant responded to the RPD as follows: “Ojbection [sic].”

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objection to the RPD is without merit. In its opposition to the motion, Defendant argues that the RPD is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information. Since Defendant failed to assert these objections in its original responses, the objections are waived. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th 263; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2).) Moreover, because Defendant failed to provide any legitimate grounds for its general objection in its response, a further response to RPD No. 7 is required. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b) [if a party does object to a discovery response, the objection must identify with particularity the information or documents objected to, and set forth clearly the extent of, and specific ground for, the objection].)

f. RPD No. 10

RPD No. 10 requests all documents relating to lawsuits about food-related illness filed by customers, other than Plaintiff, against Defendant in 2013. Defendant objected to the RPD as overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, and oppressive. Defendant also objected to the RPD on the ground that it calls for an improper expert opinion.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections to the RPD are without merit. In its opposition, Defendant only attempts to justify its objections based on over breadth, irrelevancy, and improper expert opinion. Consequently, the undefended objections are overruled. (See Coy v. Super. Ct., supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 220-221.)

Defendant’s objection based on the ground that the RPD calls for an improper expert opinion and/or premature disclosure of expert identities and reports is without merit. Defendant argues that the RPD requests information regarding food-related illness and medical diagnoses and symptoms which require disclosure of an expert opinion, identity, and/or report. However, Defendant does not indicate that it has retained any expert in this matter such that his or her identity or opinion would be privileged. (See Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser (1999) 22 Cal. 4th 31, 37 [the identity and opinions of a party’s retained experts are generally privileged unless they are going to testify at trial].) In addition, Defendant does not identify any documents which contain expert opinions that would be protected under the work product doctrine. (See Hernandez v. Super. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 297 [opinions of experts who have not been designated as trial witnesses are protected by the attorney work product rule].) Moreover, the fact that the documents requested relate to “food-related illness” or other medical terms does not in and of itself demonstrate that an expert opinion is involved. Thus, Defendant’s objection is overruled.

With regard to its over breadth and irrelevance objections, Defendant argues that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” in each of the RPD are overbroad and, thus, the RPD seek irrelevant information. As noted previously, the terms as defined by Plaintiff encompass hundreds of Defendant’s restaurants and subsidiaries which have no connection to the instant case. Accordingly, Defendant’s over breadth objection as to RPD No. 10 is meritorious and sustained. Thus, no further response to RPD No. 10 is required.

g. RPD Nos. 12-15

RPD Nos. 12-15 request all documents relating to Defendant’s communications with persons regarding Plaintiff and the incident including written or recorded statements and reports about the incident. Defendant objected to the RPD on the ground that they call for documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

In its opposition, Defendant attempts to justify its objection based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. However, Defendant does not adequately defend the objections raised, or identify specific information or documents that are protected, but only generally argues that such objections are proper. While Defendant’s responses are sufficient to preserve its objections, Defendant is not excused from otherwise providing substantive responses and producing non-privileged documents. (See Best Products, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188.) Thus, further responses to RPD Nos. 12-15 are warranted.

h. RPD Nos. 17-19, 21, and 23

RPD Nos. 17, 19, 21, and 23 request documents relating to and maintained by the Sunnyvale location’s system for recording claims and communications about food-related illness. RPD No. 18 requests documents relating to Defendant’s system for recording communications about food-related illness. Defendant objected to the RPD as overbroad, irrelevant, and improperly seeking documents containing an expert opinion.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s objections to the RPD are without merit. In its opposition, Defendant attempts to justify all of its objections. With regard to RPD Nos. 18 and 19, Defendant argues that the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” in each of the RPD are overbroad and, thus, the RPD seek irrelevant information. As noted previously, the terms as defined by Plaintiff encompass hundreds of Defendant’s restaurants and subsidiaries which have no connection to the instant case. Accordingly, Defendant’s over breadth objection as to RPD Nos. 18 and 19 is meritorious and sustained. Thus, no further response to RPD Nos. 18 and 19 is required.

With regard to RPD Nos. 17, 21, and 23, Defendant’s objection based on the ground that the RPD calls for an improper expert opinion and/or premature disclosure of expert identities and reports is without merit. Defendant argues that the RPD requests information regarding food-related illness and medical diagnoses and symptoms which require disclosure of an expert opinion, identity, and/or report. However, Defendant does not indicate that it has retained any expert in this matter such that his or her identity or opinion would be privileged. (See Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser (1999) 22 Cal. 4th 31, 37 [the identity and opinions of a party’s retained experts are generally privileged unless they are going to testify at trial].) In addition, Defendant does not identify any documents which contain expert opinions that would be protected under the work product doctrine. (See Hernandez v. Super. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 297 [opinions of experts who have not been designated as trial witnesses are protected by the attorney work product rule].) Moreover, the fact that the documents requested relate to “food-related illness” or other medical terms does not in and of itself demonstrate that an expert opinion is involved. Thus, Defendant’s objection is overruled.

With regard to its overbroad and irrelevant objections, Defendant generally argues that RPD Nos. 17, 21, and 23 call for the disclosure of matters so remote from the subject matter of the action as to make their disclosure of little or no practical value. Beyond this conclusory statement, Defendant provides no additional explanation as to why RPD Nos. 17, 21, and 23 are overbroad. Plaintiff persuasively argues that information as to whether the Sunnyvale location maintained a system for recording claims or communications regarding food-related illness could reasonably lead to admissible evidence such as whether other customers suffered from food-related illness around the same time as him. Thus, Defendant’s objection is overruled and further responses are warranted to RPD Nos. 17, 21, and 23.

i. RPD No. 26

RPD No. 26 requests all documents reflecting contracts with vendors from whom the Sunnyvale location purchased or acquired seafood in 2013. Defendant objected to the RPD as overbroad and irrelevant.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s objections to the RPD are without merit. In its opposition to the motion to compel, Defendant attempts to justify its objections, but only provides a conclusory statement that the RPD seeks information so remote to the subject matter of the instant case that it is irrelevant. This objection is without merit because RPD No. 26 seeks information that is limited in time to 2013 and is needed to establish the identity of the vendors from whom Defendant may have purchased the defective seafood which is relevant to causation for Plaintiff’s food-related illness. Accordingly, the objections are overruled and a further response to RPD No. 26 is required.

4. Conclusion

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to the RPD is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to compel further response to RPD Nos.1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 23-24, and 26. The motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 6, 8, 10, 16, 18-20, 22.

III. Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $9,625.00.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

Plaintiff fails to cite any statutory basis under which he is requesting sanctions. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to the SI, RFA, and RPD is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to compel further response to: SI Nos. 2, 5-10, 13-14 (insofar as they request information about claims of food-related illness made during June 2013), 15-16, 21-28, 30-31, 36 and 40-43; RFA Nos.1-6, 8, 10, 15, and 17; RPD Nos.1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 23-24, and 26. The motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to compel further responses to: SI Nos. 3-4, 11-14, 17-18, 29, 32-35, and 37; RFA Nos. 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16; RPD Nos. 6, 8, 10, 16, 18-20, 22.

Accordingly, within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order, Defendant shall serve verified code-compliant further responses to SI Nos. 2, 5-10, 13-14 (insofar as they request information about claims of food-related illness made during June 2013), 15-16, 21-28, 30-31, 36 and 40-43, RFA Nos.1-6, 8, 10, 15, and 17, RPD Nos.1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 23-24, and 26 without objections (except for attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine as to RPD Nos. 12-15 which have been preserved), and produce documents as appropriate in accordance with those responses. To the extent any documents are withheld based upon attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, Defendant shall also serve a privilege log identifying all documents withheld and providing a factual basis for the privilege claimed.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.