Cojocaru v. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
3:24-cv-01770
S.D. Cal.Aug 1, 2025Background
- Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC moved to compel further document production from plaintiff Radu Cojocaru in response to Request for Production No. 29, specifically seeking communications between plaintiff and Deanna Nguyen.
- Plaintiff withheld post-July 18, 2024 documents, citing a state-law privacy right over personal, intimate communications.
- Plaintiff did not assert the privacy objection in initial responses, raising it for the first time 107 days later, after discovery was underway and only after defendant noticed.
- Defendant argued plaintiff's privacy objection was waived due to untimely assertion, and regardless, the discovery request was not overbroad or improper.
- The Court analyzed whether the delay in objection constituted a waiver and whether good cause existed to excuse it, reviewing relevant factors including prejudice, dilatoriness, and fairness.
- The Court also considered the breadth of defendant's RFP No. 29 and the propriety of plaintiff’s document production cutoff date and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff waived the privacy objection to RFP No. 29 | Delay was inadvertent, should not waive privacy rights | Untimely objection = waiver | Waiver found; privacy objection overruled |
| Whether attorney error justifies late assertion of objection | Counsel forgot to make final edit; no bad faith | Carelessness is not good cause | No good cause—attorney carelessness is not a sufficient excuse |
| Whether failure to object prejudiced defendant or was dilatory | Defendant should have inferred production was limited | Prejudice due to lack of clarity about withheld info | Failure to object prejudiced defendant; favors waiver |
| Whether RFP No. 29 is overbroad or improperly framed | Request is overbroad, especially subpart (a) | Request seeks relevant information | Subpart (a) is overbroad & objections sustained, but other subparts stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (untimely objections to discovery are generally deemed waived)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rawstrom, 183 F.R.D. 668 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (discussing waiver of discovery objections)
- Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1985) (attorney carelessness does not constitute good cause for delay)
- Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (all-encompassing, vague discovery requests are overbroad)