Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs bring this case against Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200) regarding Defendants allegedly sending 

“junk faxes.” Plaintiff R. Fellen Inc. d/b/a Sunnyside Convalescent Hospital (“Plaintiff”) brings

this motion to compel Defendant Cannon & Associates, LLC d/b/a Polaris Group (“Defendant” or 

“Polaris”) to provide further, unqualified responses to its second supplemental responses to 

Plaintiff’s request for production of documents. Doc. 106. The parties have submitted a joint 

statement regarding the discovery dispute. Doc. 109. This matter is suitable for decision without 

oral argument and is considered on the pleadings. Local Rule 230(g). 

I. SUMMARY

In May 2015, Plaintiff served written discovery, including Plaintiff’s “First Set for 

Requests for Production,” on Defendant. After two extensions, providing responses consisting of 

exclusively objections in July 2015, and a telephonic conference with the Court, Defendant 

provided supplemental responses in October 2015. Plaintiff believed that Defendant’s 

supplemental responses were deficient and began the meet and confer process anew. The parties 

R. FELLEN, INC.; DAKOTA MEDICAL, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REHABCARE GROUP, INC.; CANNON & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-2081-DAD-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DEFENDANT CANNON & ASSOCIATES’ 

FURTHER RESPONSES

Doc. 106

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 113 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

agreed on several items, including that Defendant would provide second supplemental responses 

in January 2016. When Defendant did not provide second supplemental responses by the agreed 

upon deadline, Plaintiff brought a motion to compel. Prior to the hearing date, the parties noted in 

their joint statement that Defendant had provided its second supplemental responses. The motion 

was denied for insufficient meet and confer. The parties met and conferred one additional time by 

telephone conference and email, and were unable to resolve their disputes. Plaintiff filed the 

instant motion to compel, arguing that Defendant’s second supplemental responses are still 

deficient because they are made “subject to and without waiving” its objections, and they fail to 

state whether or not they are withholding responsive documents based on their objections.

II. RELEVANT RULES

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' 

relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not 

be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a party fails to produce documents, a party may move for an order 

compelling an answer, after attempting to obtain the sought information without court action. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(3)(B)(iv). Evasive or incomplete responses are treated as a failure to respond. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(4). For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the 

subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if 

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

In response to a request for the production of documents a party must either produce or 

provide for inspection the requested document or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to

the request, including the reasons object and include the reasons for the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a)(1), 34(b)(2)(B). An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being 

withheld on the basis of that objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 113 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Conditional Responses

Plaintiff argues that responses made subject to and without waiving objections are 

confusing and unclear as to whether Defendant is withholding documents subject to its objections. 

Plaintiff states that almost all of Defendant’s second supplemental discovery responses were made 

subject to and without waiving objections and gives one example of a contested inappropriate 

response. Request 7.9 requests “all DOCUMENTS that describe, discuss, refer to or comprise any 

and all economic and non-economic benefits obtained, derived or garnered, directly or indirectly, 

by REHABCARE ENTITIES or POLARIS from or in connection with the PUBLICATION.” 

Defendant responded by objecting that the request was vague and ambiguous, called for 

documents in the possession of another party, and was overbroad. Then without waiving the 

objections, Defendant responded that it has produced responsive documents. Plaintiff requests that 

the Court order Defendant to withdraw its responses that are made subject to and without waiving 

objections.

Plaintiff argues that courts widely condemn the practice of responding to discovery 

requests with responses that are subject to and without waiving prior objections. Plaintiff cites to 

case law from district courts in the Southern District of California, and district courts in Texas, 

Virginia, and Florida. Plaintiff’s cited cases criticizing the practice as confusing, inefficient, and 

potentially misleading. The Southern District of California has found that written responses must 

be unconditional, and objections preceding a response are deemed waived. See Perez v. United 

States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8993, *8 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016). However, if the responding 

party puts the requesting party on notice that it is withholding documents, the objection is 

preserved as long as the requesting party is “not left guessing as to what documents are being 

withheld.” Id. 

Caselaw from the Southern District of California and district courts in other states are 

informative but are not binding. There is no caselaw from this District or the Ninth Circuit that 

requires an answering party to withdraw conditional responses. Responses that are subject to and 

without waiving objections are not prohibited, as Plaintiff argues. Even if the practice is criticized

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 113 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

by some courts, such criticism does not provide a basis for requiring a responding party to 

withdraw its objections, especially when those objections are valid. In Plaintiff’s example of an 

inappropriate conditional response, Defendant’s objections are appropriate. The request appears to 

be vague and ambiguous regarding “economic benefit,” requests documents regarding RehabCare 

that are not in Defendant’s possession, and is overbroad in requesting all documents that refer to 

any indirect economic benefit obtained in connection with any fax at issue. Defendant also

indicated that it had produced responsive documents. Defendant’s response did not notify Plaintiff 

that it was withholding documents. Plaintiff has not given a reason for the Court to believe that 

Defendant is withholding documents. Further, the discussion regarding Rule 34(b)(2)(C) below 

may allay Plaintiff’s concern that Defendant is withholding documents on the basis of objections. 

It appears that Defendant has made clear, appropriate objections, has stated that it has 

provided the documents in its possession, and also provided a privilege log identifying any 

existing but withheld documents. Plaintiff has not objected to the contents of the privilege log in 

this motion. Plaintiff is not moving to compel any additional document and does not contest any of 

Defendant’s specific objections. Rather, Plaintiff seeks that the Court compel Defendant waive its 

objections in seeking extra assurance that it is not withholding documents. However, Defendant’s 

answers are not evasive or incomplete and Plaintiff has not argued that the objections are 

inappropriate; hence, further responses removing the objections or the conditional language will 

not be compelled. 

In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, through the meet and confer process, agreed to 

withdraw responses prefaced with the language along the lines of “without waiving the foregoing 

objections.” Defendant asserts that it did not agree to withdraw its objections. This appears to be a 

misunderstanding between the parties in which the Court has no reason to engage. 

B. Stating whether or not responsive documents are being withheld

Rule 34(b)(2)(C) requires an objection to “state whether any responsive materials are being 

withheld on the basis of that objection.” Defendant’s responses either provide documents or states 

that it does not have responsive documents. They do not state that they do or do not have 

responsive materials being withheld on the basis of the objections. The requirement that an 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 113 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

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

is a new addition in the December 2015 amendment. The 2015 advisory committee notes states 

that this amendment “should end the confusion that frequently arises when a producing party 

states several objections and still produces information, leaving the requesting party uncertain 

whether any relevant and responsive information has been withheld on the basis of the 

objections.” Committee Notes on Rules—2015 Amendment. Plaintiff argues that it is uncertain as 

to whether any documents are being withheld. Hence, in compliance with the amended Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and their stated purpose, the Court will compel Defendant to serve 

amended responses in compliance with Rule 34(b)(2)(C). Each response with an objection must 

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

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. 

Defendant shall serve further responses in compliance with Rule 34(b)(2)(C) within fifteen (15) 

days of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 113 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 5