Defendant James Edward Melzer's motion to compel a further response to request for production of documents and for sanctions is denied.

The Court has carefully considered the authorities and arguments by both parties and is not persuaded that the requested discovery is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant is seeking the production of certificates of insurance relating to other customers of BJs. However, BJ's is not asserting that defendant breached the agreement by failing to provide such a certificate; rather, BJ's position is that defendant breached the contract by failing to provide protective and safety equipment to the plaintiff and by failing to comply with defendant's express contractual obligation to indemnify and hold BJ's harmless from and against any and all liability arising out of the use, instruction, operation of the electric snake drain. See Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 14-15.

The Court further finds that the current........