Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith et al

Filing 362

ORDER Granting Defendant's 232 Motion to Compel Proper Productions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 12/21/2017. (mxn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL
CORP., et al.,

14

v.
TODD SMITH, et al.,

16

Before the Court is Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

[ECF No. 232]
Defendants.

15

18

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO COMPEL PROPER
PRODUCTIONS

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No.: 16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

Proper Productions. (ECF No. 232.) Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Wakaya, et
al. (Wakaya) argue that Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Youngevity International
Corp., et al. (Youngevity) failed to comply with their discovery obligations when they
produced documents without any review and designated the entirety of two productions,
amounting to approximately 4.2 million pages, as attorney’s eyes only, and entirely failed
to produce an additional 700,000 responsive documents. (Id. at 3.)1 Wakaya requests an
order requiring Youngevity to: (1) make a proper production and bear the costs of the
reproduction; (2) produce their “hit list” of documents responsive to the parties’ proposed
search terms run across Youngevity’s data; and (3) pay the costs incurred by Wakaya as a

27
28

1

All page numbers in citations to the docket refer to those generated by the CM/ECF system.
1
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

result of this motion and the costs associated with reviewing Youngevity’s prior

2

productions. (Id. at 7-8.) Youngevity argues that Wakaya seeks to improperly shift the

3

costs of review to a party-opponent and that Youngevity produced the documents in the

4

manner that Wakaya demanded. (ECF No. 240 at 3.)

5

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6

Youngevity develops and distributes products relating to nutrition, health and

7

wellness, weight loss, cosmetics, and gourmet coffee, among other products, through

8

independent direct-sellers known as “distributors.” (ECF No. 269 at 3-4.) Defendant

9

Wakaya is a multi-level marketing company that also sells its products through

10

independent distributors. (ECF No. 83 at 43.) Youngevity filed this lawsuit on March 23,

11

2016. (ECF No. 1.) The operative complaint, Youngevity’s Fourth Amended Complaint,

12

was filed on November 6, 2017. (ECF No. 269.) Youngevity alleges both federal and state

13

law claims against Wakaya, arguing that Wakaya was formed by former Youngevity

14

distributors for the purpose of competing against Youngevity and has done so unlawfully.

15

(Id. at 5.) Wakaya’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim to Youngevity’s Second

16

Amended Complaint, seeking declaratory relief and alleging state law counterclaims

17

against Youngevity, was filed on February 23, 2017. (ECF No. 83.)2
The parties’ current dispute involves Youngevity’s voluminous document

18
19

productions.

20

obligations by: (1) refusing to provide the “hit list” of search terms run across its data; (2)

21

failing to review any documents prior to production, and thus producing a substantial

22

amount of non-responsive and irrelevant documents; (3) warning that the production may

23

contain privileged information and putting the onus on Wakaya to identify and return them;

Wakaya argues that Youngevity failed to comply with its discovery

24
25
26
27
28

Wakaya has not filed a responsive pleading to Youngevity’s Fourth Amended Complaint. Youngevity’s
motion to strike and dismiss Wakaya’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 90) was
granted in part and denied in part on December 13, 2107 (ECF No. 330) and Wakaya’s motion for leave
to file a Second Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 111) was granted on December 15, 2017 (ECF No.
331). Wakaya has until December 27, 2017 to file its Second Amended Complaint, and Youngevity has
30 days thereafter to respond. (Id.)
2

2
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

(4) failing to produce 700,000 responsive documents Youngevity admits are in its

2

possession; and (5) improperly mass designating the entirety of the production as attorney’s

3

eyes only (AEO). (ECF No. 252 at 3-6.)

4
5
6

A history of the parties’ relevant discovery disputes and meet and confer efforts is
set forth below.
A. Commencement of Discovery

7

A Stipulated Protective Order governing the disclosure of documents produced in

8

discovery was entered on April 5, 2017. (ECF No. 103.) The Stipulated Protective Order

9

provides that “[a]ny party may designate information as ‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR

10

COUNSEL ONLY’ only if, in the good faith belief of such party and its counsel, the

11

information is among that considered to be most sensitive by the party, including but not

12

limited to trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial or other

13

commercial information.” (Id. at 3.)

14

Wakaya issued its discovery requests to Youngevity between April 6, 2017 and April

15

12, 2017. (ECF No. 232 at 3.) The record before the Court on this motion does not indicate

16

when or if Youngevity served its written responses and objections to Wakaya’s discovery

17

requests. The parties began meeting and conferring on document review procedures and

18

protocols following service of Wakaya’s discovery requests in late April 2017. (See ECF

19

No. 252-1 at ¶¶ 5-9.)

20

B. Search Terms “Hit List”

21

On May 9, 2017, Wakaya emailed Youngevity to discuss the use of search terms to

22

identify and collect potentially responsive electronically-stored information (ESI) from the

23

substantial amount of ESI both parties possessed. (See ECF No. 252-3 at 233-35.) Wakaya

24

proposed a three-step process by which: “(i) each side proposes a list of search terms for

25

their own documents; (ii) each side offers any supplemental terms to be added to the other

26

side’s proposed list; and (iii) each side may review the total number of results generated

27

by each term in the supplemented lists (i.e., a ‘hit list’ from our third‐party vendors) and

28

request that the other side omit any terms appearing to generate a disproportionate number
3
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

of results.” (Id. at 233.) On May 10, 2017, while providing a date to exchange search

2

terms, Youngevity stated that the “use of key words as search aids may not be used to

3

justify non‐disclosure of responsive information.” (Id. at 247.) On May 15, 2017,

4

Youngevity stated that “[w]e are amenable to the three step process described in your May

5

9 e-mail . . . .” (Id. at 254.) Later that day, the parties exchanged lists of proposed search

6

terms to be run across their own ESI. (ECF Nos. 240-3 at 144, 252-3 at 265.) On May 17,

7

2017, the parties exchanged lists of additional search terms that each side proposed be run

8

across the opposing party’s ESI. (ECF No. 252-3 at 268, 271.)

9

On June 2, 2017, Wakaya provided Youngevity with a hit list of the total number of

10

results generated by running each term in the expanded search term list across Wakaya’s

11

ESI. (ECF No. 240-3 at 113.) On June 4, 2017, Youngevity refused to produce its hit list

12

in response, and instead provided Wakaya with a list of search terms it found problematic

13

and suggestions to omit or revise these terms. (Id. at 115-18.) Wakaya objected to this

14

approach and requested that Youngevity provide its hit list first, as previously agreed. (Id.

15

at 119.) On June 5, 2017, Youngevity responded that if Wakaya provided it with a list of

16

search terms Wakaya found problematic by noon the next day, Youngevity would provide

17

Wakaya with its search terms hit list. (ECF No. 252-3 at 331.) Wakaya responded that it

18

“never agreed to any such modification to our process” and stated that if Youngevity was

19

unwilling to provide Wakaya with its hit list report, it should be prepared to contact the

20

Court the next day with the dispute. (Id. at 338.) On June 7, 2017, Youngevity informed

21

Wakaya that its discovery vendor was currently unable to run the proposed search terms

22

across all of its data and that Youngevity would provide the hit list the following week.

23

(Id. at 349.) Youngevity agreed to omit several search terms from the list run across

24

Wakaya’s ESI, which Wakaya had challenged as generating a disproportionate number of

25

hits, and proposed a modification of one search term instead of omission of the term. (Id.

26

at 350-51.) Wakaya responded that in exchange it would agree to omit the search terms

27

Youngevity argued were resulting in a disproportionate number of hits, with the exception

28
4
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

of one search term Wakaya refused to omit, “particularly without reviewing the number of

2

results generated” by the search term. (Id. at 349.)

3

Youngevity never produced its hit list. Wakaya now seeks an order compelling

4

Youngevity to produce the hit list, in addition to other relief. Youngevity opposes this

5

motion to compel generally, but does not specifically address the request that it provide its

6

hit list and does not dispute in its opposition that it had agreed to do so.

7

C. Mass Designation of Documents as “For Counsel Only”

8

On July 21, 2017, Youngevity made its first large document production, consisting

9

of approximately 1.9 million pages. (ECF Nos. 240-3 at 131, 252-2 at 8.) Youngevity

10

stated that “[t]o be able to timely produce all of these documents, Youngevity has marked

11

all documents as ‘Confidential—Counsel Eyes Only.’ If you wish to de-designate any

12

produced document, please let us know and we will reconsider such designation.” (ECF

13

No. 240-3 at 131.) Wakaya states that it immediately objected to the mass designation of

14

documents as AEO and held a meet-and-confer conference regarding the production the

15

same day. (ECF No. 252-2 at 8-9.) Wakaya states that on August 1, 2017, it proposed that

16

the production be treated as if designated only “Confidential,” instead of AEO, and Wakaya

17

would give Youngevity three business days’ notice of its intent to disclose any document

18

containing agreements with non-parties, detailed product formulations, or detailed

19

genealogical information, and allow Youngevity the opportunity to re-designate those

20

documents as AEO. (Id. at 9.) The parties continued to meet and confer but were

21

ultimately unable to resolve the issue and contacted the Court on August 15, 2017. (ECF

22

Nos. 157, 252-2 at 10.)

23

On August 18, 2017, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference

24

with the Court, wherein the parties discussed re-designation of Youngevity’s production as

25

“Confidential” with the understanding that certain categories of documents would be

26

maintained as AEO. (See ECF Nos. 159, 252-2 at 10.) The parties agreed to meet and

27

confer on which categories of documents would remain designated as AEO. (ECF No.

28

252-2 at 10.)
5
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

Wakaya states that on August 22, 2017, Youngevity produced an additional 2.3

2

million pages of documents that were also mass designated AEO. (Id. at 11.) On August

3

24, 2017, Youngevity proposed 24 categories of documents to be maintained as AEO,

4

apparently including “financial information,” “product information,” “shareholder

5

information,” “compliance information,” and “anything not relevant to this case,” among

6

other categories. (See ECF Nos. 240-3 at 135, 252-2 at 11.)3 Wakaya states that it objected

7

to these categories as vague and ambiguous on August 28, 2017. (ECF No. 252-2 at 11.)

8

On September 5, 2017, Wakaya again objected to these categories as “vague and

9

amorphous,” and stated that if Youngevity did not identify “a workable set of categories

10

(narrow and well-defined) and agree to re-designate its production as CONFIDENTIAL

11

by 5 PM Mountain tomorrow, Wakaya will move to compel and for sanctions.” (ECF No.

12

240-3 at 135.) On September 12, 2017, the parties placed a joint call to the Court regarding

13

their inability to come to an agreement on the categories of documents that would remain

14

designated as AEO. (ECF No. 252-2 at 12.) On September 27, 2017, the parties again

15

discussed the mass designation of documents as AEO in an informal discovery conference

16

with the Court. (See id. at 13.) The Court suggested that a technology-assisted review

17

(TAR) may be the most efficient way to resolve the myriad disputes surrounding

18

Youngevity’s productions. (Id.) As discussed below, the parties continued to meet and

19

confer on the designation of documents as AEO and raised the issue with the Court after

20

failing to come to a resolution.

21

Youngevity does not dispute that its productions, totaling approximately 4.2 million

22

pages, remain designated as AEO. Youngevity does not claim that the documents are all

23

properly designated AEO, but asserts that this mass designation was the only way to timely

24

meet its production obligations when it produced documents on July 21, 2017 and August

25

22, 2017. (ECF No. 240 at 6.) It offers no explanation as to why it has not used the

26
27
Neither party provided a copy of Mr. Awerbuch’s August 24, 2017 email. This email is referenced,
however, in an email attached to Youngevity’s opposition brief. (ECF No. 240-3 at 135.)
3

28

6
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

intervening five months to conduct a review and properly designate the documents, except

2

to say, “Youngevity believes that the parties reached an agreement on de-designation of

3

Youngevity’s production which will occur upon the resolution of the matters underlying

4

this briefing.” (Id. at 11.) Why that de-designation is being held up while this motion is

5

pending is not evident.

6

D. Documents Produced Without Document-by-Document Review

7

Wakaya argues that Youngevity failed to review any documents prior to production

8

and instead provided Wakaya with a “document dump” containing masses of irrelevant

9

documents, including privileged information, and missing “critical” documents. (ECF No.

10

232 at 3, 8.) Youngevity’s productions contain documents such as Business Wire news

11

emails, emails reminding employees to clean out the office refrigerator, EBay transaction

12

emails, UPS tracking emails, emails from StubHub, and employee file and benefits

13

information. (ECF No. 252-3 at 359-442.) Youngevity argues that it simply provided the

14

documents Wakaya requested in the manner that Wakaya instructed. (ECF No. 260 at 3.)

15

While providing its July 21, 2017 document production, Youngevity communicated

16

to Wakaya that “given the size of this production and the limited discovery timetable, we

17

may have accidentally produced material protected by a privilege such as the attorney client

18

and/or attorney work product privileges, but note that such inadvertent production does not

19

waive any privilege.” (ECF No. 240-3 at 131.) Wakaya states that on August 22, 2017,

20

Youngevity provided its second large document production consisting of 2.3 million pages.

21

(ECF No. 252-2 at 11.) On September 5, 2017, Wakaya informed Youngevity that “[i]t

22

has become clear that Youngevity engaged in no pre-production review of its documents

23

and has instead engaged in a ‘document dump.’” (ECF No. 240-3 at 135.) Wakaya

24

demanded that Youngevity review its production and remove irrelevant and non-

25

responsive documents. (Id.)

26

As mentioned above, on September 12, 2017, the parties placed a joint call to the

27

Court requesting an informal discovery conference regarding the number of non-

28

responsive and irrelevant documents in Youngevity’s production. (See ECF Nos. 205, 2527
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

2 at 4.) Wakaya states that on September 20, 2017, Youngevity communicated for the first

2

time that it did not engage in a pre-production review of documents. (ECF No. 252-2 at

3

13.)

4

As discussed above, on September 27, 2017, the parties participated in an informal

5

discovery conference with the Court regarding Youngevity’s document productions in

6

which the Court suggested that conducting a TAR of Youngevity’s productions might be

7

an efficient way to resolve the issues. (Id.) On October 5, 2017, the parties participated in

8

another informal discovery conference with the Court because they were unable to resolve

9

their disputes relating to the TAR process and the payment of costs associated with TAR.

10

(See ECF No. 215.) The Court suggested that counsel meet and confer again with both

11

parties’ discovery vendors participating. Wakaya states that on October 6, 2017, the parties

12

participated in a joint call with their discovery vendors to discuss the TAR process. (ECF

13

No. 252-2 at 14.) The parties could not agree on who would bear the costs of the TAR

14

process. Youngevity states that it offered to pay half the costs associated with the TAR

15

process, but Wakaya would not agree that TAR alone would result in a document

16

production that satisfied Youngevity’s discovery obligations. (ECF No. 240-1 at 4.)

17

Wakaya argued that it should not have bear the costs of fixing Youngevity’s improper

18

productions. (ECF No. 252-3 at 14.) On October 9, 2017, the parties left a joint voicemail

19

with the Court stating that they had reached a partial agreement to conduct a TAR of

20

Youngevity’s production, but could not resolve the issue of which party would bear the

21

TAR costs. (Id.; ECF No. 222.) In response to the parties’ joint voicemail, the Court issued

22

a briefing schedule for the instant motion. (ECF No. 222.)

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
8
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

E. 700,000 Documents Not Yet Produced

2

The discovery period closed on September 22, 2017. (ECF No. 193.)4 Sometime

3

between September 25, 2017 and October 2, 2017,5 Youngevity informed Wakaya that it

4

had inadvertently failed to produce an additional 700,000 documents due to a technical

5

error by its discovery vendor. (ECF Nos. 260-1 at 4, 252-3 at 13.) Youngevity states that

6

it offered to produce these documents “as previously produced documents,” presumably

7

without review and designated in toto as AEO, but Wakaya declined the offer. (ECF No.

8

260 at 7.) Youngevity has not produced these documents and states that they will be

9

produced “after the issues in this Motion are resolved.” (Id.) Again, why the production

10

of these concededly belated and responsive documents is being held in abeyance while this

11

motion is pending is not evident to the Court.

12

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

13

Wakaya seeks an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) or Rule 37

14

requiring Youngevity to remedy what it asserts is an improper production and pay the costs

15

incurred by Wakaya as a result of this motion and the costs associated with reviewing

16

Youngevity’s prior productions. (ECF No. 232 at 7-8.)

17

A. Rule 26(g)

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) requires an attorney or party to sign and certify

19

“that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a

20

reasonable inquiry” every discovery response is—

21

(i)

consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for
establishing new law;

(ii)

not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

22
23
24
25
26
4

27
28

The parties were granted leave to depose specific witnesses after this date. (ECF Nos. 244, 224, 208.)
Youngevity states that it informed counsel of the missing documents during the week of September 25,
2017. (ECF No. 260-1 at 4.) Wakaya states that Youngevity informed it of the missing documents on or
about October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 252-3 at 13.)
5

9
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1
2

(iii)

3

neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the
needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and
the importance of the issues at stake in the action.

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). The Court, “on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate
sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both,” when a
certification violates Rule 26(g)(1) without substantial justification. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(g)(3).
Rule 26(g) “imposes an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a
responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through 37.”
U.S. ex rel. O’Connell v. Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 651 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment). Fulfilling the spirit
and purposes of the discovery rules “requires cooperation rather than contrariety,
communication rather than confrontation.” Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 253
F.R.D. 354, 357 (D. Md. 2008). The advisory committee’s note to the 1983 amendment
states that Rule 26(g) “provides a deterrent to both excessive discovery and evasion by
imposing a certification requirement that obliges each attorney to stop and think about the
legitimacy of a discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(g) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. The duty to make a “reasonable
inquiry” is “a matter for the court to decide on the totality of the circumstances” using an
objective standard. Id.
B. Rule 37(a)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) provides for motions to compel when a party
fails to appropriately produce requested discovery. Specifically, under Rule 37, “on a
motion to other parties . . ., a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery.”
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery,
authorizing the parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is
10
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of showing that

3

the discovery sought is relevant. Aros v. Fansler, 548 Fed. App’x. 500, 501 (9th Cir. 2013)

4

(citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)); La. Pac. Corp. v. Money

5

Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, No. 09cv03529, 2012 WL 5519199, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov.

6

14, 2012). The opposing party is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing why

7

discovery was denied.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975);

8

McEwan v. OSP Grp., L.P., No. 14cv2823-BEN (WVG), 2016 WL 1241530, at *4 (S.D.

9

Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (same).

10

If a motion to compel is granted, a court “must, after giving an opportunity to be

11

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or

12

attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred

13

in making the motion, including attorney’s fees” unless, inter alia, the nondisclosure “was

14

substantially justified” or “other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (Fed.

15

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)).

16

C. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

17

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit

18

discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is

19

pending may issue further just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). “The definition of

20

‘order’ in Rule 37(b) has been read broadly. But Rule 37(b)(2)’s requirement that there be

21

some form of court order that has been disobeyed has not been read out of existence; Rule

22

37(b)(2) has never been read to authorize sanctions for more general discovery abuse.”

23

Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992)

24

(internal citations omitted). See also Bair v. California State Dep’t of Transp., 867 F. Supp.

25

2d 1058, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The rule “grants courts the authority to impose sanctions

26
27
28
11
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

where a party has violated a protective order issued pursuant to Rule 26(f).” 6 O’Connor

2

v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2017 WL 3782101, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

3

31, 2017) (quoting Life Tech. Corp. v. Biosearch Tech., Inc., No. C-12-00852 WHA (JCS),

4

2012 WL 1600393, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2012)); Avago Techs., Inc. v. IPtronics Inc.,

5

No. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD, 2015 WL 3640626, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015). See also

6

Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming

7

assessment of attorney’s fees as sanction for violation of stipulated protective order).

8

Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides that “[i]nstead of or in addition to the orders above, the

9

court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the

10

reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure unless the failure was

11

substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

13

D. Inherent Power

14

District courts may impose sanctions as part of their inherent power “to manage their

15

own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers

16

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). Indeed, district courts can impose sanctions for a

17

“full range of litigation abuses.” Id. at 55. A finding of bad faith is usually required before

18

a court can enter sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority. Lahiri v. Universal Music

19

and Video Distribution Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing B.K.B. v. Maui

20

Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2002); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-

21

94 (9th Cir. 2001)). However, “a ‘willful’ violation of a court order does not require proof

22

of mental intent such as bad faith or an improper motive, but rather, it is enough that a party

23

acted deliberately.” Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir.

24
25
26

“Rule 26(f) addresses the development of a discovery plan and references ‘any other orders that should
be entered by the court under Rule 26(c),’ the rule addressing protective orders.” Harmston v. City & Cty.
of San Francisco, No. C 07-01186SI, 2007 WL 3306526, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(f)(3)).
6

27
28

12
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

2012) (holding that counsel acted willfully when he knowingly filed class certification

2

motion without redacting confidential information in violation of protective order).

3 III.

ANALYSIS

4

As noted above, Wakaya requests an order requiring Youngevity to: (1) make a

5

proper production and bear the costs of the reproduction, (2) produce their “hit list” of

6

documents responsive to the parties’ agreed upon list of search terms run across

7

Youngevity’s data, and (3) pay the costs incurred by Wakaya as a result of this motion and

8

the costs associated with reviewing Youngevity’s prior productions pursuant to Rules 26(g)

9

and 37. (ECF No. 232 at 7-8.)
A. Timeliness of Wakaya’s Motion to Compel

10
11

As an initial matter, Youngevity challenges Wakaya’s motion to compel as untimely

12

under Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chamber Rules (Civil Chambers Rules). Youngevity argues

13

that the parties did not begin the meet and confer process over the alleged “document

14

dump” until over six weeks after Youngevity’s initial document production. (ECF No. 240

15

at 8.) Youngevity also argues that Wakaya failed to bring the dispute to the attention of

16

the Court until over seven weeks after Youngevity’s initial production. (Id.)

17

The Civil Chambers Rules provide that absent leave of court, counsel shall comply

18

with their meet and confer requirements under the Local Rules “within 14 days of the event

19

giving rise to the dispute.” 7 Civil Chambers Rules, Section IV.A. If the parties are unable

20

to conclude the meet and confer process in a timely manner they may file a joint motion

21

requesting an extension of the meet and confer deadline. Id. The Civil Chambers Rules

22

also provide that any discovery disputes must be brought to the attention of the court “no

23

later than 30 calendar days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute

24

occurred.” Id. at Section IV.B. For written discovery, the “event giving rise to the dispute”

25

is defined as “the date of the service of the response, or in the absence of a response, the

26
27
28

The Local Rules provide that “[t]he court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R.
Civ. P., unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.” CivLR. 26.1.
7

13
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

date upon which a timely response was due.” Id. at Section IV.F. The Scheduling Order

2

in this case further provides that “[a]ll discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of

3

the service of an objection, answer, or response which becomes the subject of dispute, or

4

the passage of a discovery due date without response or production, and only after counsel

5

have met and conferred to resolve the dispute and requested an informal teleconference

6

with the Court.” (ECF No. 132) (emphasis in original.)

7

Youngevity argues that Wakaya should have been aware that Youngevity did not

8

perform a document-by-document review when it informed Wakaya on July 21, 2017 that

9

its entire production was marked as AEO. (ECF No. 240 at 6.) Youngevity argues that

10

Wakaya nonetheless failed to meet and confer on the issue until September 5, 2017, and

11

did not raise the issue with the Court until seven weeks after Youngevity’s initial

12

production. (Id. at 8.) Wakaya argues that it “repeatedly urged Plaintiffs to remedy errors,

13

which was met with stonewalling,” and that the 30-day deadline should not be strictly

14

enforced as it “would punish Defendants’ attempts to work professionally and in good faith

15

to resolve issues without running to the Court at the first pushback.” (ECF No. 252 at 6.)

16

Youngevity’s initial production occurred on July 21, 2017. (ECF Nos. 240-3 at 131,

17

252-2 at 8.) The parties first brought the issue of Youngevity’s mass designation of

18

documents as AEO to the Court’s attention on August 15, 2017, after meeting and

19

conferring on the issue. (See ECF No. 157.) Accordingly, this dispute was brought within

20

the Court’s 30-day deadline. Civil Chambers Rules, Section IV.B. However, Wakaya did

21

not bring the issue of Youngevity’s failure to review its document production to the Court’s

22

attention until September 12, 2017. (See ECF Nos. 205, 252-2 at 4.) Wakaya states that it

23

began to “suspect” that Youngevity’s productions constituted a “document dump” around

24

August 28, 2017. (ECF No. 252-2 at 11.) But Wakaya was in possession of Youngevity’s

25

July 21, 2017 production, which was mass designated as AEO, for over seven weeks before

26

it brought the issue to the Court. Under the Court’s Civil Chambers Rules, Wakaya should

27

have brought the dispute regarding Youngevity’s failure to conduct a document-by-

28

document review of its production within 30 days of Youngevity’s production. Civil
14
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

Chambers Rules, Section IV.B. Alternatively, Wakaya could have requested an extension

2

of the discovery dispute deadlines. See id. at Section IV.A. Despite this failure, the Court

3

considers the merits of all aspects of this motion, in part because the merits of the untimely

4

discovery issues are closely related to those that are timely.

5

B. Rule 26(g)

6

Wakaya argues that Youngevity’s responses to its requests for production violate

7

Rule 26(g) as counsel failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry prior to certifying that

8

Youngevity’s responses were not interposed for an improper purpose nor unreasonable or

9

unduly burdensome or expensive. (ECF No. 232 at 8-9.) Wakaya argues that Youngevity

10

impermissibly certified its discovery responses because its productions amounted to a

11

“document dump” intended to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the cost of

12

litigation. (Id. at 8.)

13

Wakaya fails to establish that Youngevity violated Rule 26(g). Wakaya does not

14

specifically claim that certificates signed by Youngevity or its counsel violate Rule 26(g).

15

Neither party, despite filing over 1,600 pages of briefing and exhibits for this motion,

16

provided the Court with Youngevity’s written discovery responses and certification. The

17

Court declines to find that Youngevity improperly certified its discovery responses when

18

the record before it does not indicate the content of Youngevity’s written responses, its

19

certification, or a declaration stating that Youngevity in fact certified its responses. See

20

Cherrington Asia Ltd. v. A & L Underground, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 653, 658 (D. Kan. 2010)

21

(declining to impose sanctions under Rule 26(g) when plaintiffs do not specifically claim

22

that certificates signed by defendant’s counsel violated the provisions of Rule 26(g)(1)).

23

Accordingly, Wakaya is not entitled to relief under Rule 26(g).

24
25

C. Rule 37(a)
1. Production of 4.2 Million Pages

26

As noted above, Wakaya argues that production of 4.2 million pages mass

27

designated as AEO without a pre-production review violates Youngevity’s discovery

28

obligations and caused, and continues to cause, Wakaya prejudice as it is unable to properly
15
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

prepare for depositions, motion practice, and trial. (ECF No. 232 at 6, 7, 10.) Youngevity

2

admits that it produced documents without conducting a document-by-document review.

3

(ECF No. 240 at 11.) Youngevity argues that its production was nonetheless proper

4

because (1) the documents were produced exactly as Wakaya requested (Id. at 8), and (2)

5

every document is responsive to Wakaya’s requests for production because each document

6

hits on at least one of the agreed-upon search terms. (ECF No. 260 at 5.) Youngevity

7

characterizes its massive productions as the result of Wakaya’s failure to narrow its search

8

terms or adopt Youngevity’s proposed modifications. (Id.)8
Youngevity’s arguments fail for two reasons.

9

First, the Court finds that the

10

documents were not produced as Wakaya requested. Youngevity argues that “the very

11

‘sea’ of irrelevant documents Wakaya complains of is entirely of Wakaya’s own making”

12

because Wakaya refused to narrow its search terms or requests for production. (ECF No.

13

260 at 3.) Youngevity argues that “nearly all, if not all” of the documents in its production

14

are responsive to Wakaya’s broad requests for production. (ECF No. 240 at 7.)9 The Court

15

agrees that a number of Wakaya’s requests for production appear to be overly broad in

16

subject matter or unbounded by any time period, likely contributing to the massive size of

17
18
8

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Both parties argue that they have suffered more prejudice than the other side as a result of the opposing
party’s failure to comply with the discovery rules. (See ECF Nos. 232 at 4-5, 7, 240 at 12.) The dispute
before the Court is whether Youngevity complied with its discovery obligations, not which party has
suffered more from their opponent’s discovery abuses. See Montgomery v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No.
3:12-cv-03057-AJB-DHB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2016) (“[D]iscovery is not conducted on a ‘tit-for-tat’ basis,
and the fact that Plaintiff may have suffered prejudice in connection with [defendant’s] alleged untimely
document production does not remove the prejudice [defendant] suffered as a result of Plaintiff’s improper
‘document dump.’ If Plaintiff truly experienced prejudice, as alleged, his proper remedy was to have
sought appropriate sanctions.”).
9
Youngevity cites to an email attached to Wakaya’s reply brief reminding employees to clean out the
office refrigerator (ECF No. 252-3 at 418) as an example of a document Wakaya identifies as nonresponsive but which Youngevity maintains is responsive. Youngevity argues that this email is responsive
to Wakaya’s requests for production requesting “all Documents, Communications, or ESI from January
1, 2014, to the present related to any Defendant or Counterclaim Plaintiff.” (ECF Nos. 260 at 6, 240-3 at
48, 68, 88, 107.) This email is not responsive to Wakaya’s requests for production. The email copies
Michelle Wallach, a Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant. If the email had copied a Defendant or
Counterclaim Plaintiff, however, the email reminding employees to clean out the refrigerator would have
been responsive to Wakaya’s requests for production.
16
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

Youngevity’s document productions. (See, e.g., ECF No. 240-3 at 14 (“Please produce all

2

Documents or Communications related to any Defendant or Counterclaim Plaintiff from

3

January 1, 2015, to the present.”); id. at 16 (“Please produce all Documents or

4

Communications showing the amount of revenue earned by Youngevity from sales to

5

persons or entities that are Youngevity Distributors.”).) Wakaya’s requests are very broad,

6

and would no doubt result in the production of a huge number of responsive documents in

7

any event, but Wakaya has established that Youngevity’s production improperly exceeded

8

Wakaya’s requests.

9

Besides establishing that Youngevity’s production exceeded Wakaya’s requests, the

10

record indicates that Youngevity did not produce documents following the protocol to

11

which the parties agreed. The parties negotiated an ESI search term protocol wherein the

12

parties would provide search terms for their own ESI to the other side; then the parties

13

would respond to the list they received with any additional proposed search terms for the

14

opposing party’s ESI; then each side would provide the other with a hit list of search term

15

results, so the other side could consider narrowing the proposed search terms based upon

16

the hit list numbers. (ECF No. 252-3 at 233.) Youngevity failed to produce its hit list to

17

Wakaya, and instead produced every document that hit upon any proposed search term.

18

(ECF No. 240-3 at 115-18.) Had Youngevity provided its hit list to Wakaya as agreed and

19

repeatedly requested, Wakaya might have proposed a modification to the search terms that

20

generated disproportionate results, thus potentially substantially reducing the number of

21

documents requiring further review and ultimate production. Youngevity argues that

22

Wakaya refused to accept Youngevity’s proposed search term modifications, ballooning

23

the size of Youngevity’s production. (ECF No. 260 at 6.) The record reflects the opposite.

24

Youngevity requested a limited number of modifications to the search terms, almost all of

25

which Wakaya agreed to, with the exception of one term that Wakaya stated it could not

26
27
28
17
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

agree to omit “particularly without reviewing the number of results generated.” (ECF No.

2

252-3 at 349.) 10

3

In addition, the parties negotiated a stipulated protective order, which provides that

4

only the “most sensitive” information should be designated as AEO. (ECF No. 103 at 3.)

5

In spite of the parties’ negotiations and the Court’s subsequent order entering the Stipulated

6

Protective Order, Youngevity designated every document in its July 21, 2017 production

7

as AEO. On August 22, 2017, after participating in a discovery conference with the Court

8

a few days prior regarding re-designation of the July 21, 2017 production from AEO to

9

“Confidential,” Youngevity produced an additional approximately 2.3 million pages mass

10

designated as AEO. (ECF No. 252-2 at 11.) Wakaya promptly objected to each of these

11

actions. It is not disputed that Youngevity failed to conduct any review of its documents

12

prior to production and mass designated every document as AEO, even after discussing the

13

impropriety of such a designation with the Court days earlier.
Second, Youngevity conflates a hit on the parties’ proposed search terms with

14
15

responsiveness.11

16

obligation to produce responsive documents. (ECF No. 260 at 3-4.) Youngevity argues

17

that because each document hit on a search term, “the documents Youngevity produced are

The two are not synonymous. Youngevity admits that it has an

18
19
10

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Youngevity cites to a June 4, 2017 email exchange in which Wakaya provides Youngevity with its hit
list and Youngevity then refuses to provide Wakaya with its hit list and instead sends a lengthy list of
proposed modifications to narrow Wakaya’s search terms. (ECF No. 240-3 at 113-28.) After meeting
and conferring, counsel conveyed to Wakaya that it would accept more limited modifications, stating that
“Youngevity is amendable to similarly omitting only the following terms [from the proposed search terms
to be run across Wakaya’s ESI], which based on the data obtained thus far produce disproportionate
number of results: Dr*, label*; protect*; #wacky; *phone*.” (ECF No. 252-3 at 350-51.) Wakaya agreed
to omit label*, protect*, and *phone*, and substitute “Dr.” for Dr*, but stated that “particularly without
reviewing the number of results generated, we cannot agree to omit #wacky in light of information
reported to and observed by us regarding how that hashtag has been and is being used.” (Id. at 349; ECF
No. 252-1 at ¶ 28.) Wakaya then renewed its request for Youngevity’s hit list. (Id.)
11
Youngevity also argues that Wakaya conflates “relevance” with “responsiveness,” and Youngevity is
not required to determine which documents are relevant to Wakaya’s claims and defenses. (ECF No. 260
at 3-5.) The Court does not address this argument further as the Court does not consider whether
Youngevity’s production contained “irrelevant” documents, as opposed to non-responsive documents, in
coming to its decision.
18
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

necessarily responsive to Wakaya’s Requests.” (ECF No. 240 at 9.) Search terms are an

2

important tool parties may use to identify potentially responsive documents in cases

3

involving substantial amounts of ESI. Search terms do not, however, replace a party’s

4

requests for production. See In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13MD02420

5

YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015) (noting that “a problem

6

with keywords ‘is that they often are overinclusive, that is, they find responsive documents

7

but also large numbers of irrelevant documents’”) (quoting Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287

8

F.R.D. 182, 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). UPS tracking emails and notices that employees must

9

clean out the refrigerator are not responsive to Wakaya’s requests for production solely

10

because they hit on a search term the parties’ agreed upon. (See ECF No. 252-3 at 359-

11

442.)

12

The Court is persuaded that running proposed search terms across Youngevity’s ESI,

13

refusing to honor a negotiated agreement to provide a hit list which Wakaya was to use to

14

narrow its requested search terms, and then producing all documents hit upon without

15

reviewing a single document prior to production or engaging in any other quality control

16

measures, does not satisfy Youngevity’s discovery obligations. Further, as is discussed

17

below, mass designation of every document in both productions as AEO clearly violates

18

the Stipulated Protective Order in this case. Youngevity may not frustrate the spirit of the

19

discovery rules by producing a flood of documents it never reviewed, designate all the

20

documents as AEO without regard to whether they meet the standard for such a

21

designation, and thus bury responsive documents among millions of produced pages. See

22

Queensridge Towers, LLC v. Allianz Glob. Risks US Ins. Co., No. 2:13-CV-00197-JCM,

23

2014 WL 496952, at *6-7 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2014) (ordering plaintiff to supplement its

24

discovery responses by specifying which documents are responsive to each of defendant’s

25

discovery requests when plaintiff responded to requests for production and interrogatories

26

by stating that the answers are somewhere among the millions of pages produced).

27

Youngevity’s productions were such a mystery, even to itself, that it not only designated

28

the entirety of both productions as AEO, but notified Wakaya that the productions might
19
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

Accordingly, Wakaya’s request to compel proper

1

contain privileged documents.

2

productions is granted, as outlined below. See infra Section IV.

3

2. Failure to Produce 700,000 Documents

4

Youngevity failed to produce 700,000 documents prior to the discovery cutoff and,

5

as far as the Court is aware, has not produced the documents to this day. Youngevity states

6

that it offered to produce these documents “as previously produced documents,”

7

presumably without review and designated AEO, but Wakaya declined the offer. (ECF

8

No. 260 at 5.) Youngevity identified these documents as responsive but states that it will

9

produce these documents after the issues in the instant motion are resolved. (Id.) This

10

position is unsupportable. Wakaya’s request to compel these documents pursuant to Rule

11

37(a) is granted, as outlined below. See infra Section IV.

12

D. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

13

Wakaya argues that the Court should grant Wakaya’s requested relief under Rule

14

37(b)(2)(A) as the Court “may issue further just orders” when “a party . . . fails to obey an

15

order to provide or permit discovery.” 12 (ECF No. 232 at 11.) Rule 37(b)(2)(A) does not

16

“authorize sanctions for more general discovery abuse,” but instead requires that a party

17

disobey an order to provide or permit discovery. Bair, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 1068. Wakaya

18

does not indicate which order was violated by the litany of discovery abuses it alleges

19

against Youngevity. (See ECF Nos. 232, 252.)

20

Youngevity’s mass designation of millions of pages of documents as AEO without

21

review violates the Stipulated Protective Order entered by this Court. (ECF No. 103.) The

22

Stipulated Protective Order provides that a “party may designate information as

23

‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY’ only if, in the good faith belief of such party

24

and its counsel, the information is among that considered to be most sensitive by the party,

25

including but not limited to trade secret or other confidential research, development,

26
27
12

28

Wakaya cites to Rule 37(b)(2)(B) but quotes Rule 37(b)(2)(A) in its motion. (ECF No. 232 at 11.) The
Court presumes that Wakaya intended to cite Rule 37(b)(2)(A).
20
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

financial or other commercial information.” (Id. at 3.) Youngevity admits that it did not

2

conduct a document-by-document review (ECF No. 240 at 11), but instead “[t]o be able to

3

timely produce all of these documents,” designated every document in its 4.2 million page

4

productions as AEO. (ECF No. 240-3 at 131.) Youngevity cannot have a good faith belief

5

that every document in its 4.2 million page productions should be designated as AEO if it

6

has not reviewed any of the documents. Furthermore, Youngevity has apparently not used

7

the intervening five months to mitigate this violation by conducting the necessary review

8

and revising its improper designation. Youngevity’s mass designation of 4.2 million pages

9

of documents as AEO without review constitutes a willful violation of a court order.

10

Accordingly, the Court may issue just orders pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and its inherent

11

authority. See O’Connor, No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2017 WL 3782101, at *4; Evon, 688

12

F.3d at 1035. As outlined below, Youngevity is ordered to designate all documents in the

13

July 21, 2017 and August 22, 2017 productions, as well as the 700,000 to-be-produced-

14

documents, with the appropriate designation under the Stipulated Protective Order. See

15

infra Section IV.
E. Reasonable Costs and Fees Associated with Wakaya’s Motion Compel

16
17

Wakaya requests reasonable costs and attorney’s fees associated with the making of

18

its motion to compel. (ECF No. 232 at 8.) Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if a motion to

19

compel is granted, the court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the

20

party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s

21

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”

22

Youngevity shall reimburse Wakaya for the reasonable expenses Wakaya incurred in

23

making this motion, including attorney’s fees.

24 IV.

Relief

25

It is hereby ordered that Youngevity satisfy its discovery obligations with respect to

26

the July 21, 2017 and August 22, 2017 productions and the production of the 700,000 yet-

27

to-be-produced documents. At Youngevity’s option, it can either:

28
21
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

1)

2

conclude the meet and confer process as to mutually acceptable search terms based

3

upon the hit list results; by January 12, 2018, run the agreed upon search terms

4

across Youngevity’s data; by February 15, 2018, screen the resulting documents

5

for responsiveness and privilege; and by February 16, 2018, produce responsive,

6

non-privileged documents with only appropriate designations of “confidential” and

7

“AEO” (said production to include that subset of the not-previously-produced

8

700,000 documents that are responsive and non-privileged); or

9

2)

By December 26, 2017, provide its hit list to Wakaya; by January 5, 2018,

By December 26, 2017, provide the not-previously-produced 700,000

10

documents to Wakaya without further review; pay the reasonable costs for Wakaya

11

to conduct a TAR of the 700,000 documents and the July 21, 2017 and August 22,

12

2017 productions for responsiveness; by January 24, 2018, designate only those

13

qualifying documents as “confidential” or “AEO”; by that date, any documents not

14

designated in compliance with this Order will be deemed de-designated.

15

Additionally, Youngevity shall pay for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

16

of bringing this motion. The parties shall follow the procedure outlined below to determine

17

the amount of reasonable expenses.

18

Further, Youngevity shall pay for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

19

Wakaya incurred as a result of Youngevity’s failure to abide by the Stipulated Protective

20

Order. Wakaya is entitled to the reasonable expenses associated with its efforts to re-

21

designate documents from Youngevity’s July 21, 2017 and August 22, 2017 productions.

22

This includes costs relating to negotiations with Youngevity to re-designate documents and

23

participation in discovery conferences with the Court regarding this issue. Wakaya is not

24

entitled to the costs it incurred in reviewing Youngevity’s productions for other matters,

25

such as deposition or trial preparation. The parties shall follow the procedure outlined

26

below to determine the amount of reasonable expenses.

27

On or before January 19, 2018, Wakaya shall provide Youngevity with a detailed

28

fee and cost invoice(s) supporting the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
22
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)

1

incurred by Wakaya. The parties shall promptly and thoroughly, and by no later than

2

February 2, 2018, meet and confer over any disputed fees and costs incurred by Wakaya.

3

If the parties are able to resolve any disputes with respect to the amount of reasonable

4

attorneys’ fees and costs, Youngevity is to pay that amount no later than February 12,

5

2018. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute(s) through the meet and confer

6

process, then Wakaya is granted leave to file, on or before February 12, 2018, an ex parte

7

motion supported by sufficient evidence in support of the amount of reasonable fees and

8

costs owed by Youngevity to Wakaya in connection with this motion and its efforts to re-

9

designate Youngevity’s productions.13 The deadline for Youngevity to file an opposition

10
11

to Wakaya’s motion for fees and costs, if any, shall be February 26, 2018.
V.

CONCLUSION

12

For the reasons set forth above Wakaya’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

13

Youngevity shall reimburse Wakaya for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

14

associated with bringing this motion and its efforts to re-designate Youngevity’s July 21,

15

2017 and August 22, 2017 productions.

16
17

Dated: December 21, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

Youngevity has not yet presented the Court with sufficient evidence to enable the Court to consider all
the factors necessary in setting reasonable fees under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and pertinent case law. See
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008).
23
16-cv-00704-BTM (JLB)