BROUSSARD vs THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV010715: BROUSSARD vs THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by GERALD BROUSSARD (Plaintiff) CRS# 914541484411 in Department 17 Tentative Ruling - 06/01/2026 Chad A. Stegeman The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by GERALD BROUSSARD on 04/03/2026 is Granted in Part. The Motion of Plaintiff Gerald Broussard (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Further Requests for Production of Documents and Monetary Sanctions as to Defendant Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (“Defendant”) is DENIED in its entirety.

PROCEDURAL DEFECTS In lieu of an Opposition, Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and Ryan Minobe filed a joint ‘Response to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses’ asserting that they would file supplemental responses to the discovery at issue by May 26, 2026 prior to the hearing. (Response, p. 1:22-24; Hsueh Decl., ¶ 5.) On May 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Reply stating that neither Defendant supplemented their responses by said deadline. (Reply, p. 2:2-5.) Although the response is not an Opposition, Plaintiff does not offer a declaration in support of his position in his Reply.

Further, regardless of Defendants’ basis for allegedly providing supplemental responses late, there are issues with the framing of the RFPs at issue as identified below.

LEGAL STANDARD A motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); see also Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [stating that once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify the objection].) Where electronically stored information is “not readily accessible,” the responding party bears the burden of demonstrating the burden. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (d); see Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [“[T]he party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination.”]; see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417 [an “objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.”].) The burden is on the party moving to compel discovery to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand,” and “mere generalities” are insufficient. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.

Superior Ct., 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 223-24 (1997); see also Bd. of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal. App. 5th 1011, 1041 [holding that the moving party’s “explanation is far too general to support the production of every document in these categories”].) Fishing expeditions are improper, particularly where the requests “plac[e] more burden upon the adversary than the value of the information warrants.” (Calcor, 53 Cal. App. 4th at 225.) DISCUSSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV010715: BROUSSARD vs THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by GERALD BROUSSARD (Plaintiff) CRS# 914541484411 in Department 17 Based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Separate Statement, the Motion appears to only concern RFPs 15-18 and 21, although the Court notes that only RFPs 15 to 18 are identified in the Notice of Motion. Nevertheless, the Court considers all five RFPs.

All five requests as stated are grossly overbroad, and Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing good cause for production of the totality of Defendant’s communications and records remotely related to Plaintiff without any limitations. Plaintiff has made no attempt to limit the requests to specific communications or documents directly relevant to his claims of FEHA, Labor Code, and UCL violations. Plaintiff is not entitled to the entirety of this information.

Nevertheless, Defendant has indicated its intent to supplement its responses. To the extent that Defendant has not yet done so, however, the Court strongly recommends that the parties resolve or narrow their disputes in additional “meet and confer” efforts.

Because the subject RFPs are, as drafted, are grossly overbroad, the Motion to Compel Further is DENIED. Accordingly, sanctions are also denied as Defendant had substantial justification in ‘opposing’ the motion as to its objections. If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1.

Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV010715: BROUSSARD vs THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by GERALD BROUSSARD (Plaintiff) CRS# 914541484411 in Department 17