Motion to Compel Discovery

On [____________], Moving Party served [Interrogatories / Requests for Production / Requests for Admission] (the "Discovery Requests") on Responding Party pursuant to Rules 26, 33, and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Responding Party served responses on [____________], which were deficient in the following material respects: (a) Responding Party failed to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. [____________], asserting objections that are legally unsupported and factually without basis; (b) Responding Party's responses to Interrogatory Nos. [____________] are evasive, incomplete, and do not fully answer each interrogatory as required by Rule 33(b)(3); and (c) Responding Party improperly withheld documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege without providing the privilege log required by Rule 26(b)(5)(A).

The withheld and deficient discovery is directly relevant to the central claims and defenses in this action and is proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, 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, as required by Rule 26(b)(1). Responding Party's wholesale refusal to produce responsive documents and provide complete answers is without justification and constitutes a failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Scheduling Order.

Prior to filing this Motion, Moving Party's counsel engaged in a good-faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without Court intervention, as required by Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule [____________]. Specifically: (a) on [____________], counsel for Moving Party sent a detailed letter to counsel for Responding Party identifying each deficiency and requesting supplemental responses by [____________]; (b) on [____________], counsel conferred by telephone for approximately [____] minutes, during which Responding Party's counsel agreed to supplement responses to [____________] but refused to produce documents responsive to [____________]; and (c) on [____________], Moving Party's counsel sent a follow-up email confirming the outstanding disputes and advising of the intent to file this Motion.

Despite Moving Party's good-faith efforts, the parties have been unable to resolve the following disputes without Court intervention: (a) Responding Party's refusal to produce documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. [____________]; (b) Responding Party's incomplete and evasive answers to Interrogatory Nos. [____________]; and (c) Responding Party's failure to provide a privilege log for documents withheld on privilege grounds. The Declaration of [Counsel Name], filed concurrently herewith, sets forth the detailed chronology of meet-and-confer communications in full.

Rule 37(a) authorizes a party to move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery when another party fails to make disclosure required by Rule 26(a), fails to respond to an interrogatory, or fails to produce documents or permit inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The scope of permissible discovery extends to any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance for discovery purposes is broader than relevance for trial purposes and encompasses information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

A party asserting attorney-client privilege or work-product protection must expressly claim the privilege and describe the nature of the documents withheld in a manner that enables other parties to assess the claim without revealing the protected information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Boilerplate or conclusory privilege assertions without the production of a compliant privilege log do not satisfy this requirement and constitute a waiver of the privilege. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005).

If the Court grants this Motion, Moving Party respectfully requests an award of reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with this Motion pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Responding Party's refusal to produce clearly relevant, non-privileged documents and to provide complete interrogatory answers was not substantially justified. Courts routinely award fees where, as here, the resisting party asserts meritless objections and forces the moving party to seek Court intervention to obtain discovery to which it is plainly entitled. Counsel for Moving Party has expended [____] hours in connection with the discovery dispute and the preparation of this Motion at a rate of $[____] per hour, for a total of $[____], as set forth in the accompanying Declaration.

WHEREFORE, Moving Party respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order: (a) compelling Responding Party to produce all documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. [____________] within [____] days of the Order; (b) compelling Responding Party to provide complete, non-evasive answers to Interrogatory Nos. [____________] within [____] days of the Order; (c) compelling Responding Party to produce a privilege log that complies with Rule 26(b)(5)(A) within [____] days of the Order; (d) awarding Moving Party its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this Motion; and (e) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.