Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03401/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03401-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. RUSSO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-3401 MMC (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S

INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; 

AND 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

PRECLUSION SANCTIONS

(Docket Nos. 26, 29)

Defendants Info Avenue Internet Services LLP (d/b/a Spirit Telecom, LLC) and IARegistry

have moved the Court to compel Plaintiff John A. Russo to provide initial disclosures in accordance

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). Defendants have also moved the Court for sanctions

based on Mr. Russo’s failure to provide initial disclosures. Mr. Russo did not file an opposition to

either the motion to compel or the motion for sanctions, even after notified by the Court that it had

not received any opposition. In addition, Mr. Russo failed to make an appearance at the hearing on

the motions. Having considered Defendants’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the oral

argument of defense counsel, Mr. Russo’s failure to file any opposition and failure to appear at the

hearing, and all other evidence of record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to compel and

further GRANTS Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions. The Court also recommends that the

presiding judge also award preclusion sanctions in favor of Defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

As noted above, at issue with Defendants’ motion to compel is Mr. Russo’s failure to provide

initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a). Defendants provided competent evidence that no such

disclosures were made by Mr. Russo. Because Mr. Russo failed to oppose the motion and because

there is no evidence that Mr. Russo did in fact make his initial disclosures, the motion to compel is

granted.

B. Motion for Sanctions

Based on Mr. Russo’s failure to provide initial disclosures, Defendants ask for both monetary

and preclusion sanctions. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), 

[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as

required by Rule 26(a) . . . , the party is not allowed to use that

information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or

at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. 

In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after

giving an opportunity to be heard:

(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including

attorneys’fees, caused by the failure . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A)

1. Monetary Sanctions

As noted above, Rule 37(c) authorizes an award of attorney’s fees as a monetary sanction. 

The Court finds that this sanction is appropriate. Mr. Russo has provided no excuse or reason for his

failure to provide timely initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a) as well as the Court’s order

setting initial Case Management Conference. Defendants would not have incurred any attorney’s

fees if Mr. Russo had provided his initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a).

Defendants seek attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,237.50. See Carlson Reply Decl. ¶ 5. 

This fee was calculated based on (1) the 9 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers, see

Carlson Decl. ¶ 18; (2) the 2.5 hours defense counsel spent on the reply brief, see Carlson Reply

Decl. ¶ 5; and (3) the 2 hours defense counsel “anticipate[d] spending . . . in connection with the

hearing on this matter.” Carlson Reply Decl. ¶ 5.

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Court finds $4,237.50 reasonable for fees incurred in connection with the two motions. 

The hourly rates for defense counsel are reasonable in light of their experience. Defendants are

entitled to fees for the time defense counsel spent on the moving papers and reply brief, and in

preparing for and attending the hearing. The time spent was not unreasonable. 

2. Preclusion Sanctions

Defendants also seek the preclusion sanctions provided for by Rule 37(c). A preclusion

sanction is proper under the rule unless the failure to provide the discovery was substantially

justified or is harmless. “It is the burden of the party facing sanctions to show that the failure to

comply was either substantially justified or harmless.” Carr v. Deeds, 453 F.3d 593, 602 (4th Cir.

2006); see also Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001)

(“Implicit in Rule 37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party facing sanctions to prove

harmlessness.”). Clearly, because Mr. Russo failed to file an opposition to the request for preclusion

sanctions, and further failed to make an appearance at the hearing, he has failed to meet this burden.

Moreover, the evidence of record indicates that the failure to provide initial disclosures was

not substantially justified. This case was initiated by Mr. Russo on June 28, 2007. Six months have

now passed and still there have been no initial disclosures, despite the requirements of Rule 26(a)

and the Court order setting the initial Case Management Conference. Defendants filed their motion

to compel initial disclosures on October 30, 2007. Mr. Russo could have provided initial disclosures

within the intervening two months but failed to do so. In their reply brief, filed on December 19,

2007, Defendants reiterated that initial disclosures still had not been provided, but again Mr. Russo

made no effort to do anything within the past several weeks. Although Mr. Russo’s counsel

appeared at the Case Management Conference on January 4, 2008, she took no effort to respond to

the instant motion or appear at the hearing herein. 

Finally, Mr. Russo’s failure to provide initial disclosures cannot be deemed harmless. The

importance of initial disclosures is manifest in Rule 26(a). Initial disclosures provide early guidance

to the course and scope of discovery, path of litigation (e.g., informing the appropriateness of

possible motions), and settlement discussions.

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Accordingly, the Court concludes that a preclusion sanction in accordance with Rule 37(c)(1)

is appropriate -- that is, Mr. Russo should be barred in this litigation from using any evidence that

would have been part of the initial disclosures had Rule 26(a) been complied with. Because this

sanction will likely resolve the case on the merits against Mr. Russo, i.e., the sanction may be

dispositive, the Court hereby issues a report and recommendation rather than an order.

II. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel and for monetary

sanctions in the amount of $4,237.50. The Court further recommends that Defendants’ request for a

preclusion sanction be granted. Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation

regarding preclusion sanctions with the district judge within ten days after being served with a copy. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 26 and 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4