2015-00174921-CU-DF

Ali Shayegi vs. Pacpizza, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Whelan, Christopher H.

Plaintiff Ali Shayegi’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is granted.

Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set 5, on defendant, his former employer. Defendant served the following objection to all requests: “Defendant objects to this request on the ground it is unduly burdensome and harassing as Defendant has already responded to the underlying demands, all of which are repetitive and duplicative of previous demands made by plaintiff in his Requests for Production of Documents, Sets 2, 3, and 4.”

Defendant has not substantiated its burdensome objection. An objection that a request is burdensome is baseless unless the objecting party can show the burden is so extensive as to cause “injustice,” since a “burden” is inherent in responding to any or all discovery demands (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 418; Pantzalas v.Sup. Court (1968) 272 Cal.App.2d 499, 504).

The burden is on Defendant, the responding party, to justify its objections and its failure fully to respond to this written discovery. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Defendant’s response fails to establish that any prior document request is identical to this request. Defendant failed to ”identify with particularity” any document to which this objection is being made, for instance a request for a document that was previously requested. (CCP § 2031.240 (b)(1)). Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, without objections, on or before March 12, 2018. If defendant has already produced a document responsive to the request in a prior response, defendant may identify by BATES No. the documents previously produced in each separate response.

Sanctions are denied.