1. Motion to Compel Production

Plaintiff PATHOLOGY INC. moves to compel further discovery responses from Defendants AVIIR and SAVITA DEVLIN.

Burden of Proof

The initial burden is on the moving party to present specific facts showing GOOD CAUSE to compel further answers or further production of the requested documents — that is, that the requested facts or documents are relevant. (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶8:1155, ¶ 8:1495; CRC 3.1020 (c); CCP 2031.310 (b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.).

Then the burden shifts to the responding party to justify the objections or any failure to answer the interrogatories. (Weil & Brown at ¶ 8:1157; 8:1179; Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Here, Plaintiff carries its initial burden to show that the requested discovery is relevant. Information about Aviir’s customers before and after Devlin was hired will help Pathology prove that Defendants stole Pathology’s customers. The burden shifts to Defendant to justify its objections.

Confidential Customer Lists are Sensitive Information

The court finds that many of the discovery requests are overbroad to the extent that they will force Aviir to disclose all of its customer lists or to infringe on the privacy of third party customers and employees. Confidential customer lists clearly constitute sensitive information because they sometimes qualify for formal trade secret protection. (Hoffman Corp. v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 357, 363.)

(See also American Paper & Packaging Products v. Kirgan (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1318, 1325; Morlife Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1521.)

Balancing Test

Accordingly, the court must perform a balancing test in weighing the pros and cons of compelled disclosure.

Where objection is made to discovery of such sensitive information in the trial court, the court must carefully weigh the competing factors in fashioning an order, considering: the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and ability of the court to make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure, disclosure in another form, or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances.” (Hoffman Corp. at p. 362, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 382-383.)

Showing of Good Cause

On balance, Plaintiff Pathology Inc. shows good cause to compel further responses to some RFP’s but fails to show good cause to compel further discovery as to other RFP’s, as set forth below.

Meet and Confer was Adequate

The parties appear to have engaged in adequate meet and confer efforts.

Pathology’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

The request is DENIED. The notice of motion is defective because it does not request monetary sanctions and fails to specify the amount of sanctions being sought.

first set of

Requests for Production

to Aviir

1-5, 8, 10-19, 21-28, 30, 32, 34-35, 40, 42, 44-46

The court DENIES the motion as to the following RFP’s because they are overbroad and the limitations proposed by Aviir were reasonable.

1-4, 11-19, 21, 23, 25-26, 28, 30, 34-35, 40, 42, 44-46

The court GRANTS the motion as to the following RFP’s because they seek relevant information, because they are not overbroad, and because Aviir has failed to carry its burden to justify its objections. However, any documents containing confidential information must be produced pursuant to the Protective Order.

5, 8, 10, 22, 24, 27, 32

first set of

Requests for Production

to Devlin

1-9, 11-13, 18

DENY the motion as to RFP’s 4 and 12 because the requests are overbroad. Defendant has proposed reasonable limitations on the production of documents.

GRANT the motion as to RFP’s 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, and 18 for the reasons set forth below and in the separate statement.

Good Cause Shown

Here, the RFP’s are more narrowly tailored and directed specifically at customers that Devlin personally contacted. So the RFP’s clearly seek relevant documents and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Objections

1. Burdensome and Oppressive

In Opposition, Defendant Devlin fails to justify her objection that the demand is overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. See discussion in related case #3 Pathology v. Guerrero.

2. All Responsive Documents Produced

Plaintiff argues that in some instances Defendant agreed to produce documents, then failed to produce any. In Opposition, Defendant argues that responsive documents were produced. But she fails to present evidence to prove that responsive documents were produced.

3. Vague and Ambiguous

Defendant asserts that certain RFP’s are vague and ambiguous but fails to carry her burden to explain precisely how and why they are vague or ambiguous. The court finds that none of the RFP’s are vague or ambiguous.