Judge James L. Crandall, Case 20-1170519 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 20-1170519, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Production

TENTATIVE RULING:

MOTION NO. 1: Grant

MOTION NO. 2: Grant

MOTION NO. 1: Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

MP CONTENTIONS:

Factual background:

This is a personal injury claim involving an incident that occurred at a motel in Buena Park, California. At the time of the incident, plaintiff Bryan Surles was using a wheelchair because his right leg had been previously amputated, presumably due to diabetes. Plaintiff claims no wheelchair ramp was available at the motel and he was forced to step up a curb with his left leg, which somehow caused an injury to his left leg that resulted in amputation. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complete historical treatment for diabetes is crucial to this case.

On February 23, 2022, Excelsior served Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff. This set included Special Interrogatories 29, 30, and 32 regarding Plaintiff’s prior treatment of diabetes and his primary care physician, all of which are at issue in this Motion. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff asked Excelsior for a third extension to provide responses. Plaintiff’s counsel admitted he had responsive information but had not yet reviewed the material. Excelsior offered a third extension until Monday, April 18, but Plaintiff rejected this offer and instead served improper objections that same day. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2-3.) On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff produced a second set of Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. These responses asserted the same nuisance objections as before. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 4.) On April 20, 2022, Excelsior sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s responses, but Plaintiff refused to engage in any substantive discussion. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff served Amended Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. These Amended Responses did not address the substantive issues raised in Excelsior’s letter and instead asserted the same nuisance objections for a third time. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.)

Medical treatment is not protected from discovery:

The Special Interrogatories at issue request basic information about Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical conditions. This information is discoverable and related to Plaintiff’s claim for damages. Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his medical records because he has filed a lawsuit for severe bodily injuries.

Further, Plaintiff’s document production shows he was taking multiple diabetes medications around the time of the incident. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 7.) Therefore, Plaintiff has admitted that responsive information exists. (Id.)

Excelsior seeks monetary damages in the amount of $1,615. (Mantych Decl., ¶¶ 10-13.)

Declaration of Jack D. Mantych also filed attaching:

Ex. 1: Special Interrogatories, Set One

Ex. 2: Email chain re third extension to provide responses

Ex. 3: Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Ex. 4: Plaintiff’s Second set of Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Ex. 5: Meet and confer letter

Ex. 6: Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Ex. 7: Medical record showing that Plaintiff had three prescribed medications for diabetes at the time of the incident

RP CONTENTIONS:

Plaintiff’s objections are valid:

Defendant “presumes” that Plaintiff’s other leg, the leg not even involved in nor related to this incident was amputated due to diabetes. There are no evidentiary facts that support this conclusion. Plaintiff has already answered discovery in the form of Requests for Admission, Set One, from this moving defendant denying that the prior amputation was due to diabetes (RFA #1) (Lingenfelter Decl. ¶3; Exh. 1; Exh. 2). There remains no reasonable basis for Defendant to continue to inquire into protected areas of Plaintiff’s life that have no bearing on this instant case. Defendant’s Request Nos. 29, 30, and 32, fall outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s duty to provide information as they evidence Defendant’s fishing expedition and Defendant has provided no valid basis for seeking Plaintiff’s medical records as related to pre-existing diabetes and/or records for Plaintiff’s primary care physicians over the past ten (10) years in this case.

Meet and confer:

Defendant refused to engage in proper meet and confer efforts regarding Plaintiff’s responses. The meet and confer was unreasonable and in bad faith, in light of Defendant’s clear mischaracterizations of Plaintiff’s counsel’s communications within Defendant’s Exhibit 2. In fact, this exhibit shows just how unreasonable and bad faith Defendant’s counsel’s conduct was with respect to this instant dispute, as Defendant simply engaged in “mischaracterizing a conversation…and threatening sanctions.” (Defendant’s Exh. 2 pg. 1).

Sanctions are improper:

Defendant has shown no “good cause” nor reasonable and good faith basis to request further responses before filing its motion. Indeed, the most affirmative evidence of this is the fact that Defendant failed to properly and reasonably meet and confer. Plaintiff is entitled to $1,490 in sanctions for having to prepare this opposition and appear at the hearing.

Declaration of Ernest J. Lingenfelter also filed attaching:

Ex. 1: Defendant Excelsior’s Requests for Admission, Set One

Ex. 2: Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Excelsior’s Requests for Admission, Set One

REPLY: Notice of Non-Opposition filed

MOTION NO. 1: Compel Responses to Requests for Production

MP CONTENTIONS:

Factual background:

On February 23, 2022, Excelsior served Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff. Request No. 19 requests all documents related to Plaintiff’s right leg amputation that took place prior to the subject incident. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff asked Excelsior for a third extension to provide responses. Plaintiff’s counsel admitted he had responsive information but had not yet reviewed the material. Excelsior offered a third extension until Monday, April 18, but Plaintiff rejected this offer and instead served improper objections that same day. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2-3.) On

April 18, 2022, Plaintiff produced a second set of Responses to Request for Production, Set One, which improperly attempted to add new objections and then referred to Excelsior to a non-party hospital that might have records. The response failed to provide any statement of compliance as required by the code. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff also provided a total of five pages of medical records, four of which were blurry photographs of printed documents that are completely unreadable.

On April 20, 2022, Excelsior sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s responses, but Plaintiff refused to engage in any substantive discussion. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5, 7.) On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff served Amended Responses to Request for Production, Set One. These Amended Responses did not address the substantive issues raised in Excelsior’s letter and instead asserted the same nuisance objections. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.)

No reasonable expectation of privacy:

Request No. 19 calls for evidence of Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical conditions including his prior right leg amputation. This information is related to the truth of Plaintiff’s claim for damages. Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his medical records because he has filed a lawsuit for severe bodily injuries.

Further, a party must provide responsive documents in a form that is “reasonably usable.” (CCP § 2031.280.) Plaintiff produced a total of five pages of medical records, four of which are so blurry that they are completely unreadable. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) The documents at issue are photographs of medical records, therefore Plaintiff has readable documents in his possession but is refusing to produce useable copies. The issue was brought to Plaintiff’s attention but he has refused to provide readable documents. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.)

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,615. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 10-13.)

Declaration of Jack D. Mantych also filed attaching:

Ex. 1: Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Ex. 2: Email chain re third extension to provide responses

Ex. 3: Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Ex. 4: Plaintiff’s Second set of Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Ex. 5: Meet and confer letter

Ex. 6: Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Ex. 7: Email chain re blurry records

RP CONTENTIONS:

Plaintiff’s objections are valid:

Defendant’s Request No. 19, fall outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s duty to produce as they evidence Defendant’s fishing expedition for information.

Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 19 from Defendant was a Code-compliant, valid objection and no documents were produced in response to this request. Any characterization that Defendant is entitled to new documents is outside of the scope of relief available in this instant motion to compel.

Sanctions are improper:

Declaration of Ernest J. Lingenfelter also filed attaching:

Ex. 1: Defendant Excelsior’s Requests for Admission, Set One

Ex. 2: Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Excelsior’s Requests for Admission, Set One

REPLY: Notice of Non-Opposition filed

ANALYSIS:

MOTION NO. 1:

Defendant Excelsior Restoration, Inc. moves to compel plaintiff Bryan Surles to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 29, 30 and 32 and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,615.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (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 an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 . . . (c) 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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that on April 20, 2022, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s response to the Special Interrogatories served on April 18, 2022. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Thereafter on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff served his “First Amended Responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Although Defendant has not shown that it met and conferred about the First Amended Responses, Plaintiff’s response to the Special Interrogatories at issue in this Motion are mostly identical to Plaintiff’s prior responses. Accordingly, the court should find that Defendant sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to bringing this Motion.

Timeliness:

Plaintiff served his First Amended Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, on April 28, 2022. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) The Motion was filed on May 26, 2022 and is therefore timely.

Merits:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30 and 32.

Special Interrogatory No. 29:

Special Interrogatory No. 29 asks Plaintiff to “IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided YOU with any treatment for diabetes.”

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly asserts objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 [even where a timely response is made, the responding party cannot later add objections without a court order granting relief from the waiver].

In his Amended response, Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it violates physician-patient privilege, overbroad without reasonable limitation as to scope, not relevant to the subject matter of this action, protected by Responding Party’s and Third Parties’ constitutional right to privacy in violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, State law and Federal law, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The only objections that Plaintiff asserted in his initial response that are also asserted in the Amended response are that the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff waived the remaining objections by failing to object on those grounds in his initial response.

The burden is on the Plaintiff to justify the objections. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.

Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is not relevant. Plaintiff is claiming his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant's actions. Defendant has shown that the details of Plaintiff’s prior treatment for diabetes is relevant because Plaintiff’s pre-existing diabetes may have been the cause of his left leg amputation. Defendant has shown that at the time of the incident Defendant had an existing open sore on his left leg, and he was taking multiple diabetes medications. Further, Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his medical records because he has filed a lawsuit for severe bodily injuries.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 29 should be GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 30: IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided YOU with any treatment for any diabetes-related complication or condition.

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly assert objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is not relevant. Plaintiff is claiming his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions. Defendant has shown that the details of Plaintiff’s prior treatment for diabetes is relevant because Plaintiff’s pre-existing diabetes may have been the cause of his left leg amputation. Defendant has shown that at the time of the incident Defendant had an existing open sore on his left leg, and he was taking multiple diabetes medications. Further, Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his medical records because he has filed a lawsuit for severe bodily injuries.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 29 should be GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 32:

IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided services as YOUR primary care physician in the last ten (10) years.

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly assert objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

Plaintiff has failed to show that the information sought is not relevant. Here, Plaintiff is claiming his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions. The details of Plaintiffs pre-existing conditions including his pre-existing diabetes, and possibly other conditions, are relevant because they could be the cause of his left leg amputation. Defendant has shown that at the time of the incident Defendant had an existing open sore on his left leg, and he was taking multiple diabetes medications.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 32 should be GRANTED.

Sanctions:

Defendant seeks $1,615 in sanctions calculated as follows: $190/hr. x 17 hrs. for both motions. The amount requested is excessive, the court should grant $570 in sanctions ($190 x 4hrs.)

MOTION NO. 2:

Defendant Excelsior Restoration, Inc. moves to compel plaintiff Bryan Surles to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 19 and for production of reasonably legible documents; for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,615.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

The burden is on the moving party to show relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. If the moving party demonstrates good cause, then the opposing party must justify any objections. (Kirkland v Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (Kirkland).)

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that on April 20, 2022, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s “Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Thereafter on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff served his “First Amended Responses to the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Although Defendant has not shown that it met and conferred about the First Amended Responses, Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 19 in the First Amended Responses is identical to Plaintiff’s prior response. Accordingly, the court should find that Defendant sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to bringing this Motion.

Timeliness:

Plaintiff served his First Amended Responses to Request for Production, Set One, on April 28, 2022. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) The Motion was filed on May 26, 2022 and is timely.

Merits:

Request For Production No. 19:

Request No. 19 seeks “ALL DOCUMENTS that reflect any service received by YOU from any HEALTHCARE PROVIDER related to any amputation of YOUR right leg.”

Plaintiff’s Amended Response states: “The demand is oppressive and burdensome because it is vague and ambiguous as to date and scope of documents being requested. Notwithstanding and not waiving the objections, plaintiff believes Anaheim Regional Medical Center is in possession of responsive documents.”

Defendant has sufficiently shown that good cause exists to compel a further response. Plaintiff claims that his left leg needed to be amputated because of Defendant’s actions. Defendant contends that at the time of the incident, Plaintiff had an existing open sore on his left leg and was taking multiple medications for diabetes. Therefore, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s pre-existing diabetes was likely the cause of his recent left leg amputation. Therefore, the documents requested are relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries in this action.

The Request is also neither overly burdensome and oppressive nor vague and ambiguous as to date and scope because the Request is limited to services received from healthcare providers related to amputation of Plaintiff’s right leg.

Further, Plaintiff response that he “believes Anaheim Regional Medical Center is in possession of responsive documents” fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.230. Section 2031.230 states: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel a further response should be GRANTED.

Request for Production of reasonably legible documents:

Defendant has shown that on April 18, 2022, Plaintiff produced 5 pages of medical records in response to Defendants Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) However, 4 of the documents are so blurry that they are unusable. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) Although Defendant has requested readable documents, Plaintiff has failed to provide them. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Plaintiff does not provide any explanation for failing to provide readable documents.

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff to produce legible documents should be GRANTED.

Sanctions:

Defendant seeks $1,615 in sanctions calculated as follows: $190/hr. x 17 hrs. for both motions. The amount requested is excessive, the court should grant $570 in sanctions ($190 x 4hrs.)

RECOMMENDED RULING:

MOTION NO. 1:

Defendant Excelsior Restoration, Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff Bryan Surles to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 . . . (c) 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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that on April 20, 2022, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s response to the Special Interrogatories served on April 18, 2022. (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Thereafter on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff served his “First Amended Responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Although Defendant has not shown that it met and conferred about the First Amended Responses, Plaintiff’s response to the Special Interrogatories at issue in this Motion are mostly identical to Plaintiff’s prior responses. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to bringing this Motion.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30 and 32.

Special Interrogatory No. 29:

Special Interrogatory No. 29 asks Plaintiff to “IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided YOU with any treatment for diabetes.”

The burden is on the Plaintiff to justify the objections. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 29 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 30: IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided YOU with any treatment for any diabetes-related complication or condition.

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly assert objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 30 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 32:

IDENTIFY all HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS that have ever provided services as YOUR primary care physician in the last ten (10) years.

Plaintiff has supplemented his response to the Special Interrogatory twice since serving his initial response, but all three responses simply assert objections. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses including the Amended response which is the subject of this Motion improperly assert objections not asserted in the initial response. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Spyglass Homeowners Ass'n) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.)

evidence. Plaintiff waived the remaining objections by failing to object on those grounds in his initial response.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 32 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29, 30 and 32 within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $570 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Defendant to give notice.

MOTION NO. 2:

Defendant Excelsior Restoration, Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff Bryan Surles to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 19 and for production of reasonably legible documents, is GRANTED.

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that on April 20, 2022, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s “Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.) Thereafter on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff served his “First Amended Responses to the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Mantych Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Although Defendant has not shown that it met and conferred about the First Amended Responses, Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 19 in the First Amended Responses is identical to Plaintiff’s prior response. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to bringing this Motion.

Request For Production No. 19:

Request No. 19 seeks “ALL DOCUMENTS that reflect any service received by YOU from any HEALTHCARE PROVIDER related to any amputation of YOUR right leg.”

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel a further response is GRANTED.

Request for Production of reasonably legible documents:

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff to produce legible documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce legible documents within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is also ORDERED to provide a further response to Request for Production No. 19 within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $570 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 15 days of the notice of this ruling.

Defendant to give notice.