Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs bring this case against Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200) regarding Defendants allegedly sending 

“junk faxes.” Plaintiff R. Fellen Inc. d/b/a Sunnyside Convalescent Hospital (“Plaintiff”) brings

this motion to compel Defendant Cannon & Associates, LLC d/b/a Polaris Group (“Defendant” or 

“Polaris”) to provide further, unqualified responses to its second supplemental responses to 

Plaintiff’s request for production of documents. Doc. 96. The parties have submitted a joint 

statement regarding the discovery dispute. Doc. 100. This matter is suitable for decision without 

oral argument and is considered on the pleadings. Local Rule 230(g). 

I. SUMMARY

In May 2015, Plaintiff served written discovery, including Plaintiff’s “First Set for 

Requests for Production,” on Defendant. After two extensions, providing responses consisting of 

exclusively objections in July 2015, “extensive” discussions between the parties, and a telephonic 

conference with the Court, Defendant provided supplemental responses in October 2015. Plaintiff 

believed that Defendant’s supplemental responses were deficient and began the meet and confer 

R. FELLEN, INC.; DAKOTA MEDICAL, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REHABCARE GROUP, INC.; CANNON & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-2081-MCE-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 

CANNON & ASSOCIATES’ FURTHER 

RESPONSES

Doc. 96

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 103 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

process anew. The parties agreed on several items, as evidenced by the attached emails between 

the parties, including that Defendant would provide second supplemental responses in January 

2016. When Defendant did not provide second supplemental responses by the agreed upon 

deadline, Plaintiff brought this motion to compel. Prior to the hearing date, the parties noted in 

their joint statement that Defendant had provided its second supplemental responses. Plaintiff went 

forward with its motion, arguing that Defendant’s second supplemental responses are still 

deficient, primarily because Defendant provides responses “subject to and without waiving” its 

objections. Defendant contends that it has answered each interrogatory in full and provided all

information in its possession. The parties have not sufficiently met and conferred with each other, 

nor carefully and thoroughly read the totality of the responses, including a privilege log, prior to 

filing and/or persuing this motion, as further detailed below.

II. RELEVANT RULES

In response to a request for the production of documents a party must either: (1) produce 

the requested document; (2) indicate that the requested document is not in its possession, custody, 

or control; or (3) object and include the reasons for the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1), 

34(b)(2)(B). If a party fails to produce documents as requested under Rule 34, a party may move 

for an order compelling an answer, after attempting to obtain the sought information without court 

action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(3)(B)(iv). Evasive or incomplete responses are treated as a failure to 

respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(4). For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter 

relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible 

at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

Under Rule 37(a)(1), a motion to compel discovery “must include a certification that the 

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make 

disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). In 

addition, the Local Rules and the Court’s prior scheduling order require the parties to meet and 

confer prior to bringing a discovery motion. 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 103 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff filed this motion on January 21, 2016, alleging that Defendant had not served 

second supplemental responses as promised. The hearing date was set for February 17, 2016. On 

February 5, 2016, Defendant provided second supplemental responses. Plaintiff did not withdraw 

its motion, but alleges in the joint statement filed as required on February 10, 2016, that the 

second supplemental responses are still deficient. Plaintiff alleges that it has communicated this to 

Defendant, who has stood by their responses.

This motion should be denied on the basis that the parties have insufficiently met and 

conferred. The meet and confer requirement is not arbitrary. The parties’ joint statement indicates 

that prior meet and conferring had resulted in significant progress. Plaintiff filed this motion on 

the basis that Defendant had not provided second supplemental responses. Then, Plaintiff 

converted their motion into one that compels further responses to the second supplemental 

responses on the basis that they are deficient. The parties have not sufficiently met and conferred 

regarding the second supplemental responses which were served a few days before the joint 

statement was filed. There is a glaring deficiency in the meet and confer process especially in 

regards to the privilege log, which Plaintiff seeks to compel, even though Plaintiff admittedly has 

not reviewed Defendant’s provided privilege log. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied for lack of 

sufficient meet and confer. 

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 103 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 3