ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
On September 9, 2015, the court held a hearing on defendant Ameen Hofioni's motion to compel. Jennifer Holly appeared on behalf of plaintiff U.S. Legal Support, Inc.; and Daniel Baxter appeared on behalf of defendant Hofioni. On review of the motions, the documents filed in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
I. Factual Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Ameen Hofioni and Morgan Albanese misappropriated trade secrets and other confidential information from it for the benefit of their new employers, defendants the LIT Group, Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC, and Litigation Services (collectively "Corporate Defendants"), while they were employed by plaintiff. ECF No. 44 at 1. According to plaintiff, the Corporate Defendants have been using this confidential information to solicit plaintiff's customers and recruit its employees. Id. The trade secrets at issue include: (1) the identity of plaintiff's largest accounts; (2) information on the revenue generated by plaintiff from its largest accounts; (3) upward and downward revenue trends; (4) the most active accounts by number of depositions ordered and the person responsible for ordering those depositions; and (5) plaintiff's representatives by state and their productivity measured by number of depositions and records ordered. Id. These trade secrets allow the Corporate Defendants to successfully target plaintiff's customers and employees. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that the Corporate Defendants had virtually no presence in Northern California prior to defendants Hofioni and Albanese joining their operation and that the customer lists at issue took years and millions of dollars to compile. Id. Over a period of days defendants Hofioni and Albanese covertly funneled this information to their personal email accounts to be given to the Corporate Defendants. Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that defendants Hofioni and Albanese submitted fraudulent expense reports related to defendant Hofioni's use of plaintiff's funds to purchase gift cards. Id. at 2. These cards were not provided to plaintiff's customers or returned to plaintiff upon defendant Hofioni's resignation. Id. These gift cards remain unaccounted for until this day except to the extent that they have been used. Id. In the expense reimbursement documents defendants Hofioni and Albanese submitted to plaintiff they claimed that these gift cards had been given to individuals employed by law firms that used plaintiff's services. Id. However, upon further investigation, plaintiff discovered that some of these cards were used by defendants Hofioni and Albanese at local businesses. Id. Based on defendants misappropriation of trade secrets plaintiff seeks restitution and injunctive relief for breach of contract, breach of duties of loyalty and confidence, unfair competition, conversion, and fraud. Id. at 3.
II. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed its original complaint on August 6, 2013. ECF No. 1. On September 24, 2013, the parties submitted a stipulated protective order, which the court issued on October 9, 2013. ECF Nos. 24, 27. On October 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 26. On November 4, 2013, the parties attended a status conference before the presiding district judge, who agreed to set the discovery deadline for December 4, 2014; the motion deadline for February 4, 2015; and the final pretrial conference for May 4, 2015. ECF No. 32. On November 7, 2013, the court issued a scheduling order setting out the dates outlined above. ECF No. 34. On December 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for contempt and sanctions against defendants Hofioni and Albanese. ECF No. 37. On December 20, 2013, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part with leave to amend. ECF No. 38. On January 3, 2014, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint. ECF No. 44.
On January 15, 2014, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions. ECF No. 47. On January 21, 2014, defendants filed an answer. ECF No. 48. On March 19, 2014, Squire Sanders LLP ("Squire") moved to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant Hofioni. ECF No. 50. On April 22, 2014, following the hearing on Squire's motion, the court ordered Squire to turn over records of certain communications between it and the Corporate Defendants. ECF No. 57. If Squire failed to do so, the court noted it would infer Squire violated its duty of loyalty to defendant Hofioni and bar it from serving as counsel for all defendants. Id. On May 23, 2014, defendant Hofioni filed a response to Squire's motion to withdraw requesting that the court bar it from representing all defendants in this matter. ECF No. 61. On May 29, 2014, the court ordered Squire to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to defendant Hofioni's request within fifteen (15) days. ECF No. 62. On June 13, 2014, Squire filed an opposition to defendant Hofioni's request. ECF No. 65.
On June 30, 2014, defendant Hofioni filed a motion for leave to file cross-claims against the Corporate Defendants. ECF No. 67. The Corporate Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to defendant Hofioni's motion on July 10, 2014. ECF No. 71. On July 21, 2014, the court granted defendant Hofioni's motion and ordered him to file his cross-complaint within seven days. ECF No. 74. Defendant Hofioni filed his cross-complaint the next day. ECF No. 75.
On July 25, 2014, the court granted defendant Hofioni's request that the court bar Squire from representing any defendants in this matter. ECF No. 80. The court stayed the matter to allow the non-Hofioni defendants to find counsel and to allow said counsel to familiarize themselves with the case. Id. The court also ordered the non-Hofioni defendants to file a status report within sixty days, after which the stay would be lifted. Id. On August 27, 2014, this matter was transferred from Judge Karlton to Judge England. ECF No. 83. In light of the transfer of this matter Judge England vacated the scheduled final pretrial conference and jury trial. ECF No. 85. The parties submitted a joint status report on October 15, 2014. ECF No. 88.
On November 25, 2014, the Corporate Defendants filed an answer and counter-complaint to defendant Hofioni's cross-complaint. ECF No. 92. On December 29, 2014, defendant Hofioni filed an answer to the Corporate Defendants' cross-complaint. ECF No. 97. On January 20, 2015, the court issued a scheduling order setting a discovery deadline of November 12, 2015; and a dispositive motion deadline of May 12, 2016. ECF No. 100. On June 22, 2015, defendant Hofioni filed a motion to compel plaintiff to produce responses to certain written discovery requests. ECF No. 105. The hearing on that motion was originally scheduled for July 29, 2015, id.; then August 12, 2015, ECF No. 107; August 26, 2015, ECF No. 109; and finally September 9, 2015, ECF No. 111. On September 2, 2015, defendant Hofioni and plaintiff filed a joint statement. ECF No. 113.
III. Discovery Background
On March 19 and March 25, 2015, defendant Hofioni served plaintiff with his (1) "Requests for Production of Documents, Set One;" (2) "Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two;" (3) "Interrogatories, Set One;" and (4) "Admissions, Set One." ECF No. 113 at 2. Plaintiff's responses consisted almost entirely of objections, and so the parties began a meet and confer effort that consisted of the following:
• May 1, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff;
• May 12, 2015 letter from plaintiff to defendant Hofioni;
• May 13, 2015 in-person meeting between defendant Hofioni's counsel and plaintiff's counsel;
• May 14, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff;
• June 6, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff;
• June 19, 2015 letter from plaintiff to defendant Hofioni;
• June 23, 2015 letter from defendant Hofioni to plaintiff; and
• Numerous emails and telephone conversations over this period of time.
Id.
This extended meet and confer process yielded additional responses to defendant Hofioni's interrogatories on July 17, 2015, and the production of documents on August 5, 2015. Id. However, defendant Hofioni requests that the court compel plaintiff to respond further to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16. Id. at 7, 8 n.4, 9-10, 12. Specifically, defendant Hofioni raises the following issues:
1. Defendant Hofioni seeks a verification that plaintiff has produced every responsive document in its possession, custody, or control. Id. at 3. Because of plaintiff's incorporation of a vast array of boilerplate objections in its responses, defendant Hofioni contends that it is impossible for him to determine whether plaintiff has produced all of its responsive documents. Id. (Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11).
2. In response to certain requests for production, plaintiff invited defendant Hofioni to meet and confer regarding the parameters of his requests. Id. Efforts to meet and confer, however, did not result in further responses. Id. (Requests for Production Nos. 9, 10, and 11).
3. Plaintiff has failed to produce all responsive documents to some of defendant Hofioni's discovery requests based on the Corporate Defendants' failure to respond fully to plaintiff's own discovery requests. Id. (Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16).
Plaintiff responds that:
1. Plaintiff will supplement its responses and give a clear intention to produce all responsive documents in its control. Id. at 5. However, plaintiff cannot produce all responsive documents at this time because it is still reviewing documents "and will supplement its production on a rolling basis." Id.
2. Plaintiff will produce supplemental responses to defendant Hofioni's Requests for Production Nos. 9, 10, and 11 by September 11, 2015.1 Id.
3. Plaintiff contends that it cannot produce documents or supply responses to some of defendant Hofioni's discovery requests because it first has to receive responses to its own discovery requests from the Corporate Defendants. Id. at 5-6. For example, defendant Hofioni's Interrogatory No. 1 requests information on each trade secret that he allegedly stole. Id. However, plaintiff is unable to identify each trade secret that defendant Hofioni stole until the Corporate Defendants respond to discovery requests from plaintiff seeking communications between them and defendant Hofioni. Id.
LEGAL STANDARDS
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Generally, the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) "has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401. The court must limit discovery when "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The court may also limit the extent of discovery to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or other improper purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), 26(g)(1)(B)(ii).
Federal Rules 33 and 34 provide that discovery requests must be responded to within 30 (or in some cases 45) days. In response to a request for production of documents under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is to produce all relevant documents in his "possession, custody, or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Accordingly, a party has an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his responses to discovery, National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 554-56 (N.D. Cal. 1987), and, based on that inquiry, "[a] party responding to a Rule 34 production request . . . `is under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably available to [it] from [its] employees, agents, or others subject to [its] control.'" Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223 (N.D. Ind. 1992) (citation omitted).
Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that litigants have a continuing duty to "seasonably" supplement all responses to interrogatories and requests for production if their prior responses are either incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(e)(2) ("A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production . . . if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect. . . .").
DISCUSSION
The court will grant defendant Hofioni's motion to compel in its entirety because plaintiff's responses are insufficient under the Federal Rules.
Defendant Hofioni argues that plaintiff's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are insufficient because they (1) incorporate boilerplate objections and (2) do not admit to the production of all responsive documents.2 According to defendant Hofioni, plaintiff's responses are insufficient because in them plaintiff effectively refuses to produce responsive documents based on the contention that they are not relevant to the case as a whole. Plaintiff responds that it will continue to make responsive documents available to defendant Hofioni "on a rolling basis" as they become known in the course of discovery. Plaintiff does not address defendant Hofioni's contention that its responses use boilerplate objections.
Plaintiff has an obligation to produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control within thirty (30) days of the request for production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Plaintiff does not have the right to decline to produce documents responsive to defendant Hofioni's requests based on the contention that those documents are ultimately irrelevant to Hofioni's claims. If plaintiff believed that defendant Hofioni's requests sought irrelevant documents, it should have opposed them on that basis. The time for doing so has now passed and accordingly, any such objection has been waived. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).
At the hearing, plaintiff requested that the court's order disposing of defendant's motion to compel include a caveat that plaintiff may supplement discovery with responsive documents as they become known. However, plaintiff may not reserve the right to produce responsive documents "on a rolling basis" because of the volume of discovery in this matter. While the court is aware that discovery can, at times, prove a burdensome and lengthy enterprise, that fact does not justify what would effectively be a period of endless discovery. Of course, if plaintiff finds after the deadline to produce responsive documents has passed that more responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control, it can (and must) supplement its responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Such conduct would not be improper as long as plaintiff's initial search was done diligently and in good faith. See Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 604, 615 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ("[T]he discovery process relies upon the good faith and professional obligations of counsel to reasonably and diligently search for and produce responsive documents." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Defendant Hofioni argues that plaintiff's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16 are insufficient because they do not include all responsive documents and information. Plaintiff claims to be unable to provide all responsive documents and information because the parties are at the early stages of discovery and the requests are premature. Specifically, plaintiff argues that it cannot respond fully to defendant Hofioni's discovery requests until it receives responses to its own discovery requests from the Corporate Defendants. This excuse is insufficient. Once again, plaintiff must produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). In addition, it must respond to defendant Hofioni's interrogatories separately and fully, under oath, to the best of its ability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). Obviously, plaintiff is not required to produce documents that is has no way of knowing are responsive to defendant Hofioni's requests, nor is it required to provide information it does not yet have. Defendant does not argue otherwise. However, the fact that plaintiff anticipates receiving new information from the Corporate Defendants that might require it to supplement its responses does not mean that it can simply decline to fully respond to discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Accordingly, the court will grant defendant Hofioni's motion to compel responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; and Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16 because plaintiff's responses do not comply with the Federal Rules.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that defendant Hofioni's motion to compel, ECF No. 105, is GRANTED. Plaintiff must provide documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; and responsive answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 15, and 16 within thirty (30) days of service of this order.
