Hanson v. Theranest, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant's 42 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 09/25/2024. (mef) (jms).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

LAURA HANSON,

Case No.: 24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

THERANEST, LLC, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

Defendants.

16

[ECF No. 42]

17
18

Before the Court is a Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendants TheraNest,

19

LLC (“TheraNest”), Therapy Brands Holdings, LLC (“Therapy Brands”), and Jennifer

20

Wolfe (collectively “Defendants”) (ECF No. 42), which Plaintiff Laura Hanson

21

(“Plaintiff”) opposes (ECF No. 43). On September 19, 2024, Defendants filed a reply

22

(ECF No. 48), and on September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a surreply (ECF No. 49). For the

23

reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

24

I.

BACKGROUND

25

A.

26

The instant case arises out of Plaintiff’s employment as a Director of Compliance by

27

and subsequent termination from TheraNest. (See generally ECF No. 24, Second Amended

28

Complaint (“SAC”).) Plaintiff alleges she suffered serious, disabling injuries from a motor

Underlying Case

1

24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB

1

vehicle accident on March 1, 2020, that necessitated her taking intermittent leave under the

2

Family Medical Leave Act and California Family Rights Act between March 2020 and

3

February 2021. (SAC ¶ 17.) Plaintiff’s SAC raises claims of discrimination, hostile work

4

environment, harassment, and retaliation based on Plaintiff’s disability, along with failure

5

to prevent discrimination and harassment, failure to engage in the interactive process, and

6

failure to accommodate her disability. (See generally SAC.)

7

B.

8

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff served an initial 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Therapy

9

Brands that listed 25 topics, and then served an amended 30(b)(6) deposition notice

10

(“Amended Notice”) listing 28 topics on June 3, 2024. (ECF Nos. 42-1 at 2.) After

11

Therapy Brands served objections to the Amended Notice, the parties met and conferred

12

to narrow the disputed issues from all 28 topics to 14 topics. (ECF Nos. 42-1 at 2.) On

13

July 12, 2024, the parties lodged a Joint Discovery Statement, and the Court set a Discovery

14

Conference for July 19, 2024. (ECF Nos. 42-1 at 2; 30.) On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff served

15

a second amended 30(b)(6) deposition notice (“Second Amended Notice”) listing 46 topics

16

(ECF Nos. 42-1 at 2–3; 42-6), so the Court reset the July 19, 2024 Discovery Conference

17

for August 2, 2024, to provide counsel time to meet and confer regarding the Second

18

Amended Notice (ECF No. 32). The Court held Discovery Conferences on August 2,

19

August 23, and August 30, 2024, after which the Court issued a briefing schedule for the

20

instant motion. (ECF Nos. 33; 37; 40.)

21

II.

Instant Discovery Dispute

LEGAL STANDARD

22

A party is entitled to seek discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

23

any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

24

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’

25

relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the

26

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

27

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information need not be

28

admissible to be discoverable. Id. Rule 30 further provides that a party may notice the
2

24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB

1

deposition of “a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental

2

agency, or other entity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Such notice “must describe with

3

reasonable particularity the matters for examination.” Id.

4

Although “[d]istrict courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for

5

discovery purposes,” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.

6

2005) (citation omitted), discovery of relevant information is not limitless. The Court

7

must—either on motion or sua sponte—“limit the frequency or extent” of otherwise

8

permissible discovery if the Court finds the request “unreasonably cumulative or

9

duplicative” or the discovery sought is obtainable from a “more convenient, less

10

burdensome, or less expensive” source. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).

11

Rule 26(c) further provides that, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to

12

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

13

expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “The burden is on the person seeking the protective

14

order to demonstrate good cause.” Grano v. Sodexo Mgt., Inc., 335 F.R.D. 411, 414 (S.D.

15

Cal. 2020) (citing U.S. v. $160,066.98 from Bank of America, 202 F.R.D. 624, 626 (S.D.

16

Cal. 2001). “The court has wide discretion to determine what constitutes a showing of

17

good cause and to fashion a protective order that provides the appropriate degree of

18

protection.” Id. (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)); see also

19

Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity, 344 F.R.D. 103, 107, n.3 (D. Nev. 2023), aff’d sub nom.

20

Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity A Mut. Ins. Co., No. 222CV00438CDSNJK, 2023 WL

21

5035323 (D. Nev. Aug. 4, 2023) (“While [Rule] 26(b)(1) permits a party to obtain

22

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

23

defense, courts have limited discovery where the breadth of subjects and number of topics

24

identified in a [Rule] 30(b)(6) deposition notice renders a responding party’s efforts to

25

designate a knowledgeable person unworkable.”); U.S. v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., No. CV

26

11-5097 FMO (SSX), 2016 WL 11683593, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (“While a

27

corporation must make a good faith effort to prepare a 30(b)(6) witness to fully and

28

unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter that task becomes less
3

24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB

1

realistic and increasingly impossible as the number and breadth of noticed subject areas

2

expand.”) (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4

At issue are topic numbers 4, 14, 16, 17, 21–23, 25–27, 33–36, and 39–46.1

5

Defendants generally argue that the disputed topics are overbroad and lack necessary

6

specificity.2 (See generally ECF No. 42-1.) Defendants’ motion itself does not dive into

7

particular detail about every disputed topic, instead relying on general conclusions that

8

certain topics are “objectionable,” “overbroad,” “vague,” and “not specific.” 3 (See, e.g.,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Although Defendants’ motion includes topic number 15, Plaintiff’s opposition states
that it was withdrawn and “turned into an interrogatory per the demand of Defendants. . . .”
(ECF No. 43 at 5, n.1.) Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s representation, the Court does
not address topic number 15.
2
The objections Defendants served in response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Notice
were largely identical and improperly boilerplate, listing objections based on the definition
of terms, lack of specificity, relevance, proportionality, attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product doctrine, overbreadth, vagueness, and ambiguity. (See generally ECF No.
42-4.) “Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making
any objection at all.” Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass’n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587
(C.D. Cal. 1999). Regardless, Defendants do not reraise all these objections in the instant
motion. The Court declines to address any objections raised in Defendants’ discovery
responses that they did not reassert within the instant motion. See Hall v. Marriott Int’l,
Inc., No. 19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG, 2021 WL 1906464, at *9 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2021)
(quoting SolarCity Corp. v. Doria, No. 16-cv-3085-JAH-RBB, 2018 WL 467898, at *3
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)) (“When ruling on a motion to compel, courts in this district
‘generally consider[ ] only those objections that have been timely asserted in the initial
response to the discovery request and that are subsequently reasserted and relied upon in
response to the motion to compel.’”); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Earl Scheib of Cal., Inc.,
No. 12-cv-2646-JAH-JMA, 2013 WL 12073836, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013)
(deeming all objections raised in response to the discovery requests but not addressed in
the discovery motion to be moot or waived, and limiting its review to arguments presented
in the parties’ briefs).
3
Defendants also obliquely raise the term “YOU” as a potential issue. (See ECF No.
42-1 at 2–3, n.2.) However, Defendants do not expressly argue this as an issue in their
motion and Plaintiff states that the parties agreed that “YOU” would refer to TheraNest.
(ECF Nos. 42; 43 at 8.) Accordingly, the Court reads “YOU” to mean TheraNest.
1

4

24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB

1

ECF No. 42-1 at 8 (“For example, topics 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 46 in the Second Amended

2

Notice are overbroad, span years and are not specific enough under 30(b)(6).”), (“Topics

3

33–36 are objectionable and Plaintiff should consider eliminating such topics, but Plaintiff

4

insists on including them despite their over breadth and duplicative nature.”), (“Topics 40

5

and 41 are adequately captured by other topics rendering these topics duplicative.”).)

6

However, more specifically, Defendants take issue with the terms “related to,” “reports,”

7

“potential data vulnerabilities,” and “illegal or unethical activity.” (ECF No. 42-1 at 7–8

8

(regarding Topic Nos. 25–27), 8, n.7 (regarding Topic No. 14), 8 (regarding Topic Nos.

9

39–41, and 46).) Defendants further argue that topic numbers 21–23 should be turned into

10

interrogatories in order to be less burdensome because the persons involved are no longer

11

employed by TheraNest. (ECF No. 42-1 at 9.) Finally, Defendants argue that topic

12

numbers 42–45 are irrelevant and based on “unsubstantiated and speculative allegations

13

that Defendants are concealing information and intentionally withholding documents . . . .”

14

(ECF No. 42-1 at 6 (emphasis in original).)

15

In her opposition, Plaintiff generally argues that “Topics 4, 14, 16–17, 21–23, 25–

16

27, 33–36, 39, 40–41, and 46 are all relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and damages in this case

17

and are limited in scope and time.” (ECF No. 43 at 5, 8.) For topic numbers 4, 14, 16, and

18

17, Plaintiff does not provide any further analysis or argument. Regarding topic numbers

19

21–23, Plaintiff argues she is “entitled to take a 30(b)(6) on key issues relating to the

20

person(s) making decisions that form the basis of this lawsuit.” (ECF No. 43 at 6; see also

21

id. at 7–8 (discussing issues with Defendants’ response to a previously propounded

22

interrogatory).) Regarding topic numbers 25–27, Plaintiff argues that on August 21, 2024,

23

counsel emailed a “very specific list of these ‘reports’” in order to address Defendants’

24

claims that “reports” was a vague term. (ECF No. 43 at 5.) Further, Plaintiff argues that

25

topic numbers 25–27 “are central to Plaintiff’s claims,” topic number 33 is “critical”

26

because “[w]hether she was replaced is an important fact,” topic number 34 is “relevant”

27

because “[u]nderstanding the relationship between the Defendants is a key component of

28

understanding this case,” topic numbers 35–36 are relevant to damages, and topic numbers
5

24-cv-00086-AGS-JLB