Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 21TRCV00631, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00631    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          August 19, 2022

Moving Party:                         Defendant Avadesh Bhagat dba El Dorado Hotel

Responding Parties:                Plaintiffs Dinesh Bharat and Prachi Dinesh Bharat

(1)   Motions to Compel Plaintiff Dinesh Bharat’s Further Responses To:

a.      Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One

b.      Form Interrogatories – General, Set One

c.       Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

(2)   Motions to Compel Plaintiff Prachi Bharat’s Further Responses To:

a.      Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One

b.      Form Interrogatories – General, Set One

c.       Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One are DENIED.

The motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, No. 201.3 are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further code-complaint verified responses, without objections, to the interrogatory within fifteen (15) days of this order.

The motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One, are GRANTED IN PART. The court grants the motions as to Requests for Production Nos. 1-2, 8-13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26, 41-43, 45, 47-59, 61-62, 65-67, 70-98, 102-106, 116-119; no documents are to be withheld unless itemized on a privilege log. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further code-complaint verified responses, without objections, to those requests within fifteen (15) days of this order. The court denies the motions as to the rest of the requests.

Each Plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant $2,000 in monetary sanctions within thirty (30) days of this order.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2021, plaintiffs Dinesh Bharat (“Dinesh”) and Prachi Dinesh Bharat (“Prachi”)  filed a complaint against Avadhesh Bhagat (aka Alex Bhagat), individually and doing business as El Dorado Motel, and Eldorado Motel for (1) breach of statutory obligation; minimum wage (Labor Code § 1194 et seq) and overtime wage (Labor Code § 510), (2) breach of statutory obligation; cell phone use (Labor Code § 2802(a) et seq) (3) breach of statutory obligation; paycheck stubs (Labor Code § 226), (4) misclassification as independent contractor, (5) unfair business practices (Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq), and (6) (constructive) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (retaliation).

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Further Responses to Interrogatories

Under CCP § 2030.300(a), a “propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if the propounding party deems …: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. ¶ (3) An objection to the interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2030.300 (d).

Further Responses to Request for Production

A propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to a demand for production if the propounding party deems that production is deficient, incomplete, or contains meritless objections. CCP § 2031.310(a). The legal burden to justify refusing or failing to provide discovery lies with the objecting party. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.

CCP § 2031.310(h) provides the court shall impose monetary sanctions against a person, party, or attorney that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand unless that subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Avadesh Bhagat dba El Dorado Motel moves the court to compel the plaintiffs’ further responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One (No. 201.3), Form Interrogatories – General, Set One (Nos. 2.6, 2.11, 6.1-6.2, 7.1, 8.1-8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2), and Requests for Production, Set One (Nos. 1-2, 8-13, 15-16, 23-24, 26, 35, 38, 41-43, 45, 47-49, 61-62, 65-67, 70-79, 80-89, 90-93, 94-96, 97-99, 102-106, 108, and 116-119).

The court notes that although the defendant filed six notices of motions to compel further responses (three motions directed at Dinesh and three directed at Prachi), the defendant only filed one memorandum of points and authorities on June 30, 2022.

Evidentiary Objections

            The court overrules all of plaintiffs’ objections filed on August 4, 2022 with the exception of objection 5 which is granted.

Meet and Confer

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for the production of documents must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. CCP §§ 2030, 300(b)(1), 2031.310(b).

Defendant’s counsel has filed one declaration in support of the six motions. Defense counsel states that on April 19, 2022, the defendant sent the plaintiffs a meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ responses. Declaration of Courtney Conner, filed June 30, 2022 (“Conner Decl.”), ¶ 13. The parties’ counsels continued to meet and confer regarding the issues for the next several weeks after the defense counsel sent that letter but could not resolve the issues. Conner Decl., ¶ 14. Plaintiffs do not dispute that on April 19, 2022, defense counsel sent plaintiffs’ counsel a letter seeking to meet and confer.

Accordingly, the court finds that the defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

Separate Statement

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and demand for inspection of documents must be accompanied by a separate statement. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)-(3). “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).

Here, the defendant has filed separate statements for each motion providing the requests at issue, the plaintiffs’ responses to those requests, and why further responses are necessary.

            Accordingly, the court finds that the defendant has satisfied the separate statement requirements.

45-Day Rule

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” CCP §§ 2031.310(c); 2030.300(c) (providing the same rule for motions to compel further responses to interrogatories).

“‘Failure to [timely move to compel] within the specified period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response; indeed, similar provisions have been held at least quasi-jurisdictional. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] We do not believe the 45–day limitation is ‘jurisdictional’ in the fundamental sense, but is only ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (emphasis added). “[D]iscovery deadlines are mandatory and we have treated them as jurisdictional [citation], even though a trial court may grant relief from deadlines to file motions to compel. Where a party does not obtain trial court relief from the statutory deadline, ‘failure to move for further answers within the statutory time forecloses further relief ....’ [Citation]”]. Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 322, fn. 3 (emphasis added).

            Here, plaintiffs served their responses to the Form Interrogatories – General, Set One on March 23, 2022. Conner Decl., pp. 106, 118 (Proof of Service pages in Exhibit D).  However, they served their amended responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One, on June 23, 2022. Conner Decl., pp. 128 and 137 (Proof of Service pages in Exhibits E and F).

            Under CCP § 1013(a), upon service by mail of any notice, any duty to do any act shall be extended by five calendar days if the place of mailing is within the State of California. Here, the plaintiffs served all responses via mail. Therefore, the defendant’s 45-day deadline to give notice of the motions was extended by five calendar days.

            The defendant had to give notice of the motions to compel further responses to the Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, by May 12, 2022 (50 days after service on March 23, 2022). Defendant also had to give notice of the motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One, by August 12, 2022 (50 days after service on June 23, 2022).

The Proof of Service attached to each notice of motion for the six motions states that the defendant served and filed each notice of motion on June 30, 2022.

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, are untimely because they were served and filed after the 50-day deadline on May 12, 2022, had passed. CCP § 2030.300(c). Therefore, the defendant has waived any right to compel a further response to those discovery requests, and the court is without authority to rule on the motions other than to deny them,

Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One are DENIED.

However, the defendant’s motions to compel plaintiffs’ further responses to his Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, are timely.

Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One

The complaint alleges the following. On or about August 10, 2018, until on or about July 16, 2021, the defendants employed plaintiffs as resident managers of a motel the defendants owned or operated located at 15614 S. Vermont Ave, in the city of Gardena, California (the “Property”). Compl. ¶ 1. However, throughout the plaintiffs’ employment, the defendants did not (among other things) fully compensate the plaintiffs for the time they worked at the Property. Compl. ¶ 9. On or about June 12, 2022, plaintiffs submitted formal claims with the Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages. Compl. ¶ 25. Around that time, on or about July 16, 2021, the defendants gave plaintiffs a “Notice of Re-Designation (Change in Job Title and Description) and Notice to Vacate” (the “Notice”). Compl. ¶ 27. The Notice informed plaintiffs, among other things, that they would no longer be resident managers and would no longer be provided with lodging on the Property as part of their compensation. Compl. ¶ 28. The changes reflected in the Notice were in retaliation of plaintiffs asserting their wage theft claims. Compl. ¶ 29.

Defendant moves to compel plaintiffs’ further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, No. 201.3, which asked plaintiffs the following:

Were there any other ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS, including (the asking party should list the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS):

alleged constructive termination.

If so, for each action, provide the following:

(a) All reasons for each ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION;

(b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who participated in making each ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION decision;

(c) The name, ADDRESS< and telephone number of each PERSON who provided any information relied upon in making each ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION decision; and

(d) The identify of all DOCUMENTS relied upon in making each ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION decision.

See Separate Statements in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compl Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One (“Employment Separate Statement”), p. 2:7-17; Conner Decl., Exhibit B, p. 3 – No. 201.3.

            In response, the plaintiffs provided the alleged adverse employment actions (e.g., that the defendants reduced the plaintiffs’ work hours and compensation). Employment Separate Statement, pp. 2-24:3:1. However, plaintiffs objected to the information requested in the “subparts” of the interrogatory (e.g., provide the name, address, and telephone number of each person who participated in making each adverse employment action), arguing that those subparts call for information solely in the possession of the defendant, the propounding party.

However, if plaintiffs were able to identify the alleged “adverse employment actions” that were taken against them (e.g., reducing plaintiffs’ work hours and requiring them to vacate their living quarters on the Property), it is reasonable to expect that they can also identify the individuals that took those actions against them.

Accordingly, the court grants the defendant’s motions to compel plaintiffs’ code-complaint responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, No. 201.3.

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Defendant moves to compel plaintiffs’ further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”), Nos. 1-2, 8-13, 15-16, 23-24, 26, 35, 38, 41-43, 45, 47-49, 61-62, 65-67, 70-79, 80-89, 90-93, 94-96, 97-99, 102-106, 108, and 116-119.

RPDs Nos. 1 and 2

            RPDs Nos. 1 and 2 asked plaintiffs to produce any documents that plaintiffs identified in response to the defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, respectively. Separate Statements in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compl Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set One, (“RPD Separate Statement”), pp. 2:6-3:20.

            Plaintiffs objected to the requests contending that they were burdensome, oppressive, internally contradictory, and intended solely for the purpose of harassment. Further and without waiving those objections, the plaintiffs stated that they were willing to produce the responsive documents if the defendant complied with the CCP’s requirement for specifying the date of when the responses are due on the request for production of documents.

            The court finds the plaintiffs’ objections meritless. In addition, even if the defendant failed to state the specific date of when the responses were due, the plaintiffs could have easily calculated that date since the defendant indicated that the responses were due within thirty (30) days after the service of the documents.

            Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPDs Nos. 1 and 2.

RPD Nos. 8-12

            RPD No. 8 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect, establish, or tend to establish that YOU sustained any loss of income, earnings or earning capacity as a result of the occurrences alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.”

            RPD No. 9: “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR economic damages as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.”

RPD No. 10: “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR non-economic damages as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.”

RPD No. 11: “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR claim for punitive damages as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.”

RPD No. 12: “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR claim for exemplary damages as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.”

Plaintiffs objected to the requests contending that they were overly burdensome, oppressive, internally contradictory, and intended solely for the purpose of harassment. They additionally objected to the requests, arguing that the phrases “as a result of the occurrence in the COMPLAINT” and “relating to” were vague given the “disparate types of claims” in the Complaint.

            The court finds the plaintiffs’ objections are without merit and GRANTS the motions to compel RPDs. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

RPDs Nos. 13, 15, and 16

            RPD No. 13 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all of YOUR paycheck stubs issued from 2018 to the present.”

RPD No. 15: “Any and all DOCUMENTS received by YOU from DEFENDANTS between January 1, 2018 and the present.”

RPD No. 16: “Any and all DOCUMENTS sent by YOU to DEFENDANTS between January 1, 2018 and the present.”

Plaintiffs objected to those requests contending that they were overly burdensome and sought documents already in the defendant’s possession.

The court agrees with the plaintiffs that to the extent defendants issued pay stubs to plaintiffs, those documents were and may still be in the defendant’s possession. In addition, any documents that the defendants sent to plaintiffs or received from plaintiffs were and may still be in the defendant’s possession. However, there is no showing of burden or that defendants still maintain the documents.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 13, 15, and 16.

RPD Nos. 23, 24, and 26

            RPD Nos. 23, 24, and 26 asked plaintiffs to produce all documents they gave to any agent of the California Labor Commissioner, they received from any agent of the Labor Commissioner, and relating to oral or written communications between plaintiffs and the Industrial Welfare Commission and/or the Labor Commissioner, respectively.

            The court does not find those requests overly burdensome, oppressive, internally contradictory, and intended solely for harassment, as the plaintiffs claim.

            Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 23, 24, and 26.

RPD No. 35

            RPD No. 35 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS YOU have received from any other PERSON, with the sole exception of YOUR attorney, RELATING TO any of the claims or allegations in YOUR COMPLAINT.”

            The court sustains the plaintiffs’ overly burdensome objection to the request since the request is not reasonably limited in time or scope, as such the overbreadth creates vagueness and ambiguity.

            Accordingly, the court DENIES the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 35.

RPD No. 38

RPD No. 38 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO [the defendant] Mr. Avadhesh Bhagat from January 2018 to the present.”

The court sustains the plaintiffs’ overly broad and burdensome objections to this request because it asks for all documents “related to” the defendant regardless of whether such documents are relevant to the allegations in the Complaint; the overbreadth creates vagueness and ambiguity.

Accordingly, the court DENIES the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 38.

RPD Nos. 41-43, 45, 47-59, 61-62, 65-67, and 70-98

            RPD No. 41 asked plaintiffs to produce all communications relating to any complaints they made to the defendant. Requests Nos. 42, 43, 45, 47-59, 61-62, 65-67, and 70-98 asked plaintiffs to produce all documents relating to specific allegations in their Complaint.

            The court overrules the objections to those requests, including the ones in which plaintiffs claim that the defendant is seeking documents supporting legal conclusions (e.g., plaintiffs’ responses to RPD No. 88) instead of facts.

            Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 41-43, 45, 47-59, 61-62, 65-67, and 70-98.

RPD No. 99

            RPD No. 99 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS including but not limited to texts, photographs, videos or notes contained on any mobile device in YOUR possession, custody, or control that YOU took, made or received while at YOUR workplace from August 10, 2018 to the present.”

            Plaintiffs objected to the request arguing that they were oppressive, overly broad, and overly burdensome. In addition, they argued that the requests were an invasion of their right to privacy under the U.S. and California Constitutions.

            The court sustains the overly broad and oppressive objections. The request seeks a fishing expedition of all texts, photographs, videos, and notes plaintiffs took during their employment, regardless of whether the information in those records is relevant to this lawsuit and irrespective of the plaintiff’s privacy rights.

            Accordingly, the court DENIES the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 99.

RPD No. 102

            RPD No. 102 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that support YOUR claim for beach of statutory obligations; minimum wage (Labor Code § 1194 et seq), overtime wage (Labor Code § 510).”

            The court agrees with the plaintiffs that this request is somewhat overlapping of other requests, specifically RPD No. 45 however that is not basis to withhold as no burden is shown; if the same documents are responsive the verified response can just indicate which documents are responsive to multiple categories.

            Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 102.

RPD No. 103

            RPD No. 103 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that support YOUR claim for breach of statutory obligation; cell phone usage; Labor Code § 2802(a) et seq.”

            The court does not agree with the plaintiffs that the request is duplicative of the others.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 103.

RPD No. 104

            RPD No. 104 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that support YOUR purported claim for mis-classification as independent contractor.”

            The court agrees with the plaintiffs that this request is overlapping other requests, specifically RPD No. 67, however that is not basis to withhold as no burden is shown; if the same documents are responsive the verified response can just indicate which documents are responsive to multiple categories.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 104.

RPD Nos. 105 and 106

            RPD Nos. 105 and 106 asked plaintiffs to produce all documents supporting their unfair business practices and constructive wrongful termination claims, respectively.

            The court does not agree with the plaintiffs that those requests are duplicative of other requests.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 105 and 106.

RPD No. 108

            RPD No. 108 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any cellular phone, personal digital assistant, iPad, tablet, or similar portable electronic device owned by YOU, from January 1, 2018 to the present.”

            Plaintiffs objected to the request arguing that it was overly broad, overly burdensome, oppressive, and intended solely for the purpose of harassment. Moreover, they argued, the request is an invasion of their constitutional rights to privacy.

            The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the request is overly broad and burdensome. Defendant has already asked the plaintiffs to provide all documents relating to their claim that the defendants required them to use their own cell phones (RPD No. 59) and any documents supporting their claims for breach of statutory obligation - cell phone usage - under Labor Code section 2802(a) (RPD No. 103). Therefore, there is no reason to demand an inspection of the cellphone devices the plaintiffs have owned since January 2018. Defendant has also failed to explain why he needs to inspect the other electronic devices listed in the request. A wholesale fishing expedition of personal devices for everything and anything runs afoul of balancing an individual’s privacy rights where there is no narrow tailoring to matters likely to lead to discovery of relevant admissible evidence.

            Accordingly, the court DENIES the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 108.

RPD No. 116

            RPD No. 116 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and all text messages YOU exchanged on YOUR cellular phone with DEFENDANTS.”

Plaintiffs objected to RPD No. 116, contending that the defendant failed to comply with the CCP requirement of providing the date the responses were due on demand. However, the court has already overruled that objection after finding that defendant could have easily calculated that date.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 116.

RPD Nos. 117-118

            RPD No. 117 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS that evidence or RELATE TO hours YOU worked for DEFENDANTS between August 10, 2018 and July 22, 2021.”

            RPD No. 118: “Any and DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS that evidence or RELATE TO daily tasks YOU performed for DEFENDANTS between August 10, 2018 and July 22, 2021.”

            Since plaintiffs claimed some kind of privilege protects the information requested, they should have produced a privilege log.

            Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 117 and 118; however as to those items withheld based on privilege a log must be presented or privilege will be deemed waived.

RPD No. 119

            RPD No. 119 asked plaintiffs to produce: “Any and DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS that evidence or RELATE TO job duties YOU performed for DEFENDANTS between August 10, 2018 and July 22, 2021.”

            The court agrees with the plaintiffs that this request overlaps other requests, specifically RPD No. 118 above however there is no showing of burden.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendant’s request to compel further responses to RPD No. 119,  however as to those items withheld based on privilege a log must be presented or privilege will be deemed waived

Sanctions

            Defendant seeks $10,840 in monetary sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel of record. Conner Decl. ¶ 19. The amount consists of $10,480 in attorneys fees (a total of 26.2 hours plaintiffs’ counsel spent drafting the motion and anticipated drafting the reply and preparing for/attending the hearing on the motions, at a billing rate of $400 per hour) plus $360 in filing fees ($60 for each of the six motions). Conner Decl. ¶ 19.

            The court finds the requested sanctions excessive given that (1) the plaintiffs only drafted one memorandum of points and authorities to the six motions, (2) the motions and separate statements were the same except for the plaintiffs’ names, (3) the defendant was justified in opposing a portion of the motions, and (4) the court has denied the entire motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, in their entirety because they are untimely.

            Accordingly, the court grants the defendant’s request for monetary sanctions but in the reduced amount of $2,000 as to each Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One are DENIED.

The motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, No. 201.3 are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further code-complaint responses, without objections, to the interrogatory within fifteen (15) days of this order.

The motions to compel further responses to the defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One, are GRANTED IN PART. The court grants the motions as to Requests for Production Nos. 1-2, 8-13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26, 41-43, 45, 47-59, 61-62, 65-67, 70-98, 102-106, 116-119; no documents are to be withheld unless itemized on a privilege log. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further code-complaint responses, without objections, to those requests within fifteen (15) days of this order. The court denies the motions as to the rest of the requests.

Each Plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant $2,000 in monetary sanctions within thirty (30) days of this order.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.