In Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, the defendant served the plaintiff with a request for production of documents. The plaintiff served a timely but nonspecific response, which included general objections based upon the attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine. The defendant filed a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (l), seeking further responses in compliance with the specificity requirements of section 2031, subdivision (f) and to compel the plaintiff to serve a privilege log. The plaintiff opposed the motion but served a privilege log shortly after being served with the motion. The court appointed a discovery referee to handle the discovery dispute. The referee issued a report recommending that the defendant's motion be granted and that " 'objections to all the document demanded, including those objections on attorney-client and work product grounds set forth in petitioners' untimely "privilege log" provided only after this motion was filed, are overruled ... .' " ( Korea Data, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515.) The plaintiff filed objections to the report and moved the referee to relieve them from the waiver under section 2031, subdivision (k). The motion was denied. The trial court then adopted the referee's recommendations and found a waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges. ( Korea Data, supra, at pp. 1515-1516.) The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal granted. In doing so, the Court of Appeal stated, "We agree with plaintiff's claim that the court erred in finding the attorney-client privilege waived by the untimely filing of a privilege log. Section 2031, subdivision (k) provides in part: 'If a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed fails to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Section 2018.' Here, plaintiff filed timely objections to the discovery request, albeit 'boiler plate' objections lacking the specificity the statute mandates. While the code calls for more specific responses than were originally provided, and while we recognize the use of 'boiler plate' objections as were provided in this case may be sanctionable, the appropriate sanction is not a judicially imposed waiver of the attorney-client privilege." ( Korea Data, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1516.)