Plaintiff Silvia Corona?s motion to compel further response to Plaintiff?s request for computer inspection and for an order compelling Defendant O.C. Petroleum, Inc., dba Garden Grove 76 to produce for inspection the computer Plaintiff used to clock in and out of work every day, is granted in part.
Plaintiff?s motion is timely.? The parties adequately met and conferred prior to Plaintiff filing this motion. Plaintiff has shown good cause for seeking an inspection of Defendant?s computer for Plaintiff?s time records. ?Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to properly pay her overtime and double time pay.? The records she seeks are directly relevant to those claims and is squarely within the scope of discovery. ?(Feghali Decl., ? 13, Exh. K [alleging Defendant fabricated the wage statements produced].)
When a responding party objects to a demand for inspection, the response shall:
(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made; and
(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product . . ., that claim shall be expressly asserted.
(Code Civ. Proc., ? 2031.240, subd. (b).)? In addition, when an objection is based on privilege or work product, the response ?shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.?? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 2031.240, subd. (c).)
Defendant objected to Plaintiff?s requests and refused to permit Plaintiff access to inspect the computer. Defendant?s response failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240.? Also, Defendant objected to the requests on the ground that the ?computer is not reasonable accessible because of undue burden or expense.?? However, Defendant did not ?identify in its response the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that is asserts are not reasonably accessible.?? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 2031.210.)? When a party objects to production of electronically stored information on this ground, the objecting party ?shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.?? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 2031.310, subd. (d).) ??Defendant has not met this burden in the opposition.
Within 15 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant O.C. Petroleum, Inc., dba Garden Grove 76, shall serve verified supplemental responses without any further objections, in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, and shall serve a privilege log.? Defendant is further ordered to permit Plaintiff?s expert access to the computer that Defendant used for time keeping purposes during Plaintiff?s employment within 45 days of the notice of ruling.? Such access is limited to obtaining Plaintiff?s time records.
The Court declines to order sanctions.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.