Q: What type of inappropriate objection is this?

A: Based on the information provided, it appears that the responding party, represented by an attorney, is making an objection to a request or question from the propounding party. The objection seems to be that the propounding party failed to provide a reasonable identification of the provider in question and did not specify what they meant by "distinct identity."

Under California law, this type of objection could be classified as a "vague and ambiguous" objection. An objection on the grounds of vagueness or ambiguity is made when the question or request is unclear, imprecise, or open to multiple interpretations.

In this case, the responding party is arguing that the propounding party's request is vague and ambiguous because:

1. The propounding party did not provide a reasonable identification of the provider in question, making it unclear which provider the request is referring to.

2. The propounding party used the term "distinct identity" without specifying what they meant by it, leaving the term open to interpretation.

By objecting on these grounds, the responding party is essentially saying that they cannot properly respond to the request because it is unclear and open to multiple interpretations. The objection puts the burden on the propounding party to clarify their request and provide more specific information to enable the responding party to provide a proper response.