United States District Court, C.D. California
Jerry Beeman and Pharmacy Services, Inc., et al.
Anthem Prescription Management, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Compel [Dkt.
October 19, 2017, Defendant Argus Health Systems, Inc.
(“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs
Carrie McCarthy and Rocida, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”)
to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and
8 and Request for Production Nos. 26 and 27 (“Motion to
Compel”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 492.
Defendant also seeks its reasonable expenses incurred in
bringing the Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel and
request for reasonable expenses.
February 25, 2004, the Complaint in the instant action was
filed by the several plaintiffs, owners of retail pharmacies,
as a putative class action against numerous defendants
alleging (1) violation of Section 2527 of the California
Civil Code; (2) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
business acts and practices in violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code; and (3)
declaratory relief and unjust enrichment. See Dkt.
288 at 2 (Order summarizing Complaint).
point prior to February 2008,  Defendant served a set of
twenty-six interrogatories on the named plaintiffs “on
behalf of all defendants.” Dkt. 493, Joint Stipulation
(“JS”), at 13. Defendant also served
Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 6 on plaintiffs on its own
behalf. Dkt. 492-1, Declaration of Jeremiah Levine
(“Levine Decl.”), ¶ 2, Ex. A.
February 19, 2008, the plaintiffs served responses to
Defendant's Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 6. Id.
April 11, 2016, the plaintiffs served a motion to substitute
Carrie McCarthy as successor in interest to the named
plaintiff Charles Miller, who died on October 12, 2010. Dkt.
November 10, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to substitute Ms. McCarthy. Dkt. 455.
August 2, 2017, Defendant propounded Interrogatory Nos. 7 and
8, and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs. JS
at 3. On September 18, 2017, Plaintiffs served Responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8 and the Requests for Production of
September 21, 2017, Defendant's counsel sent
Plaintiffs' counsel a letter explaining the deficiencies
in Plaintiffs' Responses and requesting to meet and
confer. Levine Decl., ¶ 4. Plaintiffs' counsel did
not respond to Defendant's counsel's request to meet
and confer. Id. Hence, on October 4, 2017,
Defendant's counsel served Plaintiffs' counsel with
Defendant's portion of the Joint Stipulation in support
of the instant Motion to Compel. Id. ¶ 5.
October 19, 2017, Defendant filed the instant Motion to
Compel with a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2.
Dkt. 492, Motion; Dkt. 493, JS. On October 19, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a declaration in support of their Opposition
to the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 494, Declaration of Michael A.
Bowse (“Bowse Decl.”). On October 26, 2017,
Defendant filed a supplemental brief in support of the Motion
to Compel. Dkt. 496. The matter thus stands submitted.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may
obtain discovery regarding:
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative
access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need
not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
Id. A court “must limit the frequency or
extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii)
the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii)
the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule
26(b)(1).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer, . . . production, or inspection.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure
to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).
party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why
the information sought is relevant and why the responding
party's objections lack merit.” Bluestone
Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. C-13-01770 SI
(EDL), 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013). In
addition, “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to
obtain discovery, the discovery requested must also be
proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v.
City of Fresno, No. 1:16-CV-653 DAD SAB, ...