The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara L. Major United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
The instant discovery dispute arises from requests for production of documents and special interrogatories separately served on Penske Logistics, LLC and Penske Truck Leasing, Co., L.P. (collectively "Defendants") by Plaintiffs Mickey Lee Dilts and Ray Rios on or about February 11, 2011. ECF No. 91-1 ("Pls.' Mem.") at 1. On March 15, 2011, the day Defendants' discovery responses were due, Defendants' counsel emailed Plaintiffs' counsel and requested a one week extension. Id., Ex. 7 at 51. Plaintiffs' counsel responded the next day and agreed to the extension. Id. at 50. The following week, on March 22, 2011, defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs' counsel and again requested additional time to comply with discovery requests. Id. Plaintiffs' counsel granted Defendants an additional week to respond, but noted that in the future, Plaintiffs would require specific details as to why any additional delay would be necessary. Id. at 49. Almost one month later, on April 18, 2011, Plaintiffs' counsel followed up with defense counsel seeking the current status of the Defendants' discovery responses because Plaintiffs still had not received any formal responses. Id. On April 21, 2011, after no response from defense counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel again emailed defense counsel about the overdue discovery responses. Id.
On June 9, 2011, counsel for both sides contacted this Court's clerk to discuss the instant discovery dispute. Id. at 42. During the call, counsel for both parties agreed that Defendants would serve their responses and documents by June 16, 2011. Id. The Court issued an order authorizing Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel if Defendants did not comply with that agreement. ECF No. 90. Defendants did not do so (ECF No. 98-2, Ex. C at 18) and, therefore, in accordance with the order, Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel on June 17, 2011. ECF No. 91. Defendants opposed the motion on June 24, 2011 (ECF No. 94), and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on July 1, 2011 and a sur-reply brief on July 11, 2011. See ECF Nos. 98 & 100. The Court took the matter under submission. See ECF No. 90.
The Federal Rules generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding "any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, "[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Id. District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in "the responding party's possession, custody, or control." Id. at 34(a)(1).
Similarly, an interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired under Rule 26(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with specificity or by "answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath." Id. at 33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records available to the interrogating party. Id. at 33(d).
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order compelling Defendants to comply with their document requests by producing all responsive documents. Pls.' Mem. at 4. Defendants do not object to the substance of Plaintiffs' document requests and simply state that they have "produced nearly all the remaining requested documents" and that the only additional documents that need to be produced are: (1) payroll records; (2) the Xata records; and (3) the E Time cards for some of the remaining drivers. ECF No. 94 ("Defs.' Resp.") at 2-3. In fact, in their response to Plaintiffs' motion, Defendants only request that the Court provide them with a short extension of time (until July 7, 2011) to respond to Plaintiffs' document requests. Id. Plaintiffs agreed to the extension of time to respond; however, after Defendants failed to produce the additional documents by July 7, 2011, Plaintiffs renewed their request. ECF No. 100 ("Pls.' Sur-Reply") at Because the parties agree that the requested documents are relevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, properly requested, and in the Defendants' possession, custody or control, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants to comply with the document requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Defendants must provide ALL documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents [Set Two] to Plaintiffs on or before July 27, 2011.
InterrogatoriesPlaintiffs move to compel supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories 26-35 [Set Two]. See Pls.' Mem., Pls.' Reply, & Pls.' Sur-Reply. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P.'s responses to the interrogatories are insufficient because Defendant Penske Truck Leasing's response to all but one interrogatory is that "Penske Truck Leasing did not employ any class members during the relevant time period." Pls.' Mem, Ex. 8 at 66-67. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Penske Logistics, LLC's responses to the interrogatories are insufficient because most of the responses direct Plaintiffs to "see response to Request no. 38 of Request for Production of Documents propounded by Plaintiff, Mickey Lee Dilts, to Penske Logistics, LLC" orto look at "Exhibit A" for the information requested. Pls.' Reply, Ex. B at 4-7. Plaintiffs find these responses to be "inappropriate under the circumstances" and an attempt to improperly shift the burden of responsibility from Defendants to Plaintiffs. Pls.' Reply at 3. Because Plaintiffs only explained their specific objections to Defendants' interrogatory responses in their Reply, Defendants did not address the sufficiency of their interrogatory responses except to say that they "have provided the signed versions of the written discovery responses." Defs.' Resp. at 2. Penske Truck Leasing Company L.P.'s Responses to Interrogatories 26-35
With the exception of interrogatory 29, Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. responded to interrogatories 26-35 by stating that "Penske Truck Leasing did not employ any class members during the relevant time period." Pls.' Mem, Ex. 8 at 66-67. Plaintiffs' objection to this response is unclear. Plaintiffs state that "even though this Discovery was propounded from Plaintiff Dilts
PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC , Defendant PENSKE TRUCK LEASING objected to the Discovery, as not being the actual employer and therefore did not respond." Pls.' Reply at 2. However, the exhibit that Plaintiffs reference, Pls.' Mem, Ex. 8 at 66-67, shows that the interrogatories were propounded by Plaintiff Dilts to Defendant Penske Truck Leasing and were answered by Penske Truck Leasing. Because Penske Truck Leasing responded to interrogatories 26-35 [Set Two], ...