Emerson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 KIMBERLY EMERSON, Case No. 20-cv-08607-YGR (AGT)

Plaintiff, v. DISCOVERY ORDER 8 Re: Dkt. Nos. 56,

IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

This order resolves the pending disputes over Emerson’s RFPs 1–7, 9–10, 12–13, 17–24, 26–27, 33–35, 37, 41–43, 46, and 48. 1. Iron Mountain’s objections to the RFPs are largely boilerplate and unpersuasive. The RFPs are not irrelevant, vague or ambiguous, argumentative, harassing, or, with few exceptions, overbroad. Privacy interests will be safeguarded by the governing protective order. See Dkt. 22. And the burden of compliance doesn’t clearly outweigh the benefit. (Iron Mountain hasn’t put forward any evidence in an attempt to quantify that burden.) Subject to limited exceptions discussed below, see infra ¶¶ 6–9, the company’s objections are overruled. 2. For many RFPs, Iron Mountain objected by stating that it already produced responsive …