ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS)

[Doc. No. 15.]

KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. [Doc. No. 15.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff requests an order compelling defendant to provide: (1) full and complete responses to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21; (2) a privilege log listing any documents responsive to Request Nos. 1 through 21 that defendant is withholding based on a privilege; and (3) a description of any search methods and search terms defendant has used to locate electronically stored information ("ESI") in response to Request Nos. 1 through 21. [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 20-22.] Defendant does not dispute the relevance of any of the documents plaintiff has requested and claims to be locating and producing documents "as expeditiously as possible." [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 4-5; 22-24.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiffs request must be GRANTED.

Defendant served plaintiff with its initial responses to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21 on December 12, 2018. [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 3-4.] In its responses, defendant raised boilerplate objections,1 including the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege,2 and responded that it would produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control "to the extent the documents have not already been made available on SMARTS pursuant to defendant's Rule 26 Initial Disclosures." [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 6-18.] On January 4, 18, and 25, 2019, defendant produced some responsive documents. [Doc. No. 15, at p. 4.] In the Joint Motion, defendant has also stated that it "will continue to attempt to locate responsive documents and produce them as expeditiously as possible." [Doc. No. 15, at pp. 4-5.] Defendant has not explained why it has been unable to produce all responsive documents thus far. Nor has defendant provided an estimate as to when it believes it can complete production of all responsive documents and a privilege log.

As of the time the parties filed their Joint Motion on January 28, 2019, plaintiff reported that "numerous responsive documents have not been produced." [Doc. No. 15, at p. 19.] In support of this assertion, plaintiffs counsel submitted a Declaration outlining significant gaps in the documents defendant had already produced. [Doc. No. 15-1, at pp. 4-5.] According to this Declaration, plaintiffs counsel was advised that defendant is in the process of preparing a privilege log, but defendant was unable to indicate when the privilege log would be completed and produced. [Doc. No. 15-1, at p. 3.] In addition, the Declaration of plaintiffs counsel indicates that defendant's failure to produce responsive documents is delaying the scheduling of depositions. [Doc. No. 15-1, at p. 5.]

On February 21, 2019, while this discovery dispute was pending, the parties filed a Joint Motion requesting additional time to complete discovery. [Doc. No. 16.] In a Declaration filed in support of this Joint Motion, plaintiffs counsel reported that defendant produced additional documents on February 12, 2019 but had not yet produced a privilege log or any information about search terms used to locate ESI. [Doc. No. 16-1, at pp. 2-3.]

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs request for an order compelling defendant to provide plaintiff with:

(1) full and complete responses to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21;3

(2) a privilege log listing any documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21 that defendant is withholding based on a privilege; and

(3) a description of any search methods and search terms defendant has used to locate electronically stored information ("ESI") that is responsive to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21.

Defendant must comply with this Order no later than March 29, 2019. In addition, no later than April 2, 2019, defendant must provide plaintiff with declarations by defense counsel and defendant's representative(s) stating under penalty of perjury that all documents and information responsive to Document Request Nos. 1 through 21 have been produced "to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.