Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00555-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1251 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

FILED 

MAR 21 2019 J 

CLERK "l7Sliif\r"1iucclu RT 

SOU HERN lJISTRiCT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

RIGHTS FOUNDATION, a non-profit 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WATKINS MANUFACTURING 

CORPORATION, a California 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18cv555-GPC(KSC) 

ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE (PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET 

OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS) 

[Doc. No. 15.] 

20 Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

21 Dispute. [Doc. No. 15.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff requests an order compelling 

22 defendant to provide: (1) full and complete responses to Document Request Nos. 1 

23 through 21; (2) a privilege log listing any documents responsive to Request Nos. 1 

24 through 21 that defendant is withholding based on a privilege; and (3) a description of 

25 any search methods and search terms defendant has used to locate electronically stored 

26 information ("ESI") in response to Request Nos. 1through21. [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 20-

27 22.] Defendant does not dispute the relevance of any of the documents plaintiff has 

28 requested and claims to be locating and producing documents "as expeditiously as 

18cv555-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00555-GPC-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 possible." [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 4-5; 22-24.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, 

2 the Court finds that plaintiffs request must be GRANTED. 

3 Defendant served plaintiff with its initial responses to Document Request Nos. 1 

4 through 21 on December 12, 2018. [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 3-4.] In its responses, defendant 

5 raised boilerplate objections, 1 including the attorney-client privilege and the work 

6 product privilege,2 and responded that it would produce all responsive documents in its 

7 possession, custody, or control "to the extent the documents have not already been made 

8 available on SMARTS pursuant to defendant's Rule 26 Initial Disclosures." [Doc. No. 

9 15, at pp. 6-18.] On January 4, 18, and 25, 2019, defendant produced some responsive 

10 documents. [Doc. No. 15, at p. 4.] In the Joint Motion, defendant has also stated that it 

11 "will continue to attempt to locate responsive documents and produce them as 

12 expeditiously as possible." [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 4-5.] Defendant has not explained why it 

13 has been unable to produce all responsive documents thus far. Nor has defendant 

14 provided an estimate as to when it believes it can complete production of all responsive 

15 documents and a privilege log. 

16 As of the time the parties filed their Joint Motion on January 28, 2019, plaintiff 

17 reported that "numerous responsive documents have not been produced." [Doc. No. 15, 

18 

19 

20 

21 

"Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making 

any objection at all." Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass'n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 

(C.D. Cal. 1999). 22 2 Defendant's responses to these requests do not specifically state that documents are 

23 being withheld based on a privilege. [Doc. No. 15, at p. 6-18.] "An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An 

24 objection to a part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest." 

25 Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(C). If a party withholds "information otherwise discoverable" 

based on a privilege, the party must "expressly make the claim." Fed.R.Civ.P. 

26 26(b)(5)(A)(i). In other words, the party must "describe the nature of the documents, 

27 communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed-and do so in a manner 

28 that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties 

to assess the claim." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 

2 

l 8cv555-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00555-GPC-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 at p. 19.] In support of this assertion, plaintiffs counsel submitted a Declaration 

2 outlining significant gaps in the documents defendant had already produced. [Doc. No. 

3 15-1, at pp. 4-5.] According to this Declaration, plaintiffs counsel was advised that 

4 defendant is in the process of preparing a privilege log, but defendant was unable to 

5 indicate when the privilege log would be completed and produced. [Doc. No. 15-1, at p. 

6 3.] In addition, the Declaration of plaintiffs counsel indicates that defendant's failure to 

7 produce responsive documents is delaying the scheduling of depositions. [Doc. No. 15-1, 

8 at p. 5.] 

9 On February 21, 2019, while this discovery dispute was pending, the parties filed a 

10 Joint Motion requesting additional time to complete discovery. [Doc. No. 16.] In a 

11 Declaration filed in support of this Joint Motion, plaintiffs counsel reported that 

12 defendant produced additional documents on February 12, 2019 but had not yet produced 

13 a privilege log or any information about search terms used to locate ESL [Doc. No. 16-1, 

14 at pp. 2-3.] 

15 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs request for an order 

16 compelling defendant to provide plaintiff with: 

17 (1) full and complete responses to Document Request Nos. 1through21;3 

18 (2) a privilege log listing any documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 1 

19 through 21 that defendant is withholding based on a privilege; and 

20 (3) a description of any search methods and search terms defendant has used to 

21 locate electronically stored information ("ESI") that is responsive to Document Request 

22 Nos. 1through21. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 To provide plaintiff will full and complete responses to Document Request Nos. 1 

through 21, defendant must not only produce all responsive documents and a privilege 

log, it must also supplement each of its prior responses to indicate on a request-byrequest basis whether it is withholding any documents or information based on a 

specifically identified privilege to be in compliance with Federal Rule 34(b)(2)(C). 

3 

18cv555-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00555-GPC-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1 Defendant must comply with this Order no later than March 29, 2019. In 

2 addition, no later than April 2, 2019, defendant must provide plaintiff with declarations 

3 by defense counsel and defendant's representative(s) stating under penalty of perjury that 

4 all documents and information responsive to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21 have 

5 been produced "to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief formed 

6 after a reasonable inquiry." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g). 

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

8 Dated: March 1-1 , 2019 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. ar . Crawford 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4 

l 8cv555-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:18-cv-00555-GPC-KSC Document 18 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4