Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02349/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02349-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LL B SHEET 1, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. LOSKUTOFF,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02349-BLF 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS; VACATING APRIL 

4, 2019 HEARING

[Re: ECF 76]

Before the Court is Plaintiff LL B Sheet 1, LLC’s motion for sanctions for Defendant

Michael J. Loskutoff’s failure to comply with a court-ordered discovery deadline. See Mot, ECF 

76. The Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the 

April 4, 2019 hearing on the motion. 

On December 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd ordered Defendant to produce 

documents regarding his current net worth and financial information within seven days of the 

issuance of a protective order in the case. See ECF 58. On June 2, 2017, the parties stipulated that 

Defendant’s deadline to comply would be May 19, 2018. See ECF 64. May 19, 2018 came and 

went, and Defendant did not produce the documents. See Saba Decl. ISO Mot. ¶ 6, ECF 76-1. 

Fact discovery closed in the case on August 17, 2018, and initial expert reports were due 

September 10, 2018. See ECF 56. 

In its motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failure to comply with the court-ordered 

discovery deadline has prejudiced it because it needs Defendant’s financial information to support

any potential imposition of punitive damages in this case. See generally Motion. As such, 

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s failure warrants sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. 

At first, Plaintiff argued such sanctions should include an adverse jury instruction, evidentiary 

Case 5:16-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 11/14/18 Page 1 of 4
2

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

sanctions, and issue sanctions. See id. at 1. However, in its reply, it abandons those specific 

requests—unless Defendant continues to fail to produce the documents by the time of trial—and 

instead asks for monetary sanctions “for all fees and costs associated with the instant motion and 

additional effort that has to be expended to get Defendant to comply with the prior Court order.” 

Reply at 4, ECF 85. Plaintiff claims it is prejudiced by Defendant’s failure because both fact and 

expert discovery are now closed, and because Defendant’s failure to timely comply has cost 

Plaintiff additional resources.

In opposition, Defendant concedes that he missed the May 2018 deadline, but argues his 

noncompliance was due to attorney turn-over, not bad faith. See Opp. at 4, ECF 81. He also 

argues against Plaintiff’s original sanctions request by noting that “monetary sanctions related to 

the increase [sic] costs and expense to Plaintiff to complete its discovery of Defendant’s financial 

condition would be the more appropriate and just relief.” See Opp. at 11.1 Finally, on October 12, 

2018, Defendant provided Plaintiff with certain documents regarding his financial status. See 

Ballasteros Decl. ISO Opp. ¶ 8, ECF 81-1. Plaintiff argues this production is still not fully

compliant with the court order, see Reply at 1–2, to which Defendant responds that he intends to 

produce additional documents or otherwise substantively respond to Plaintiff’s objections by 

October 2, 2018—which the Court interprets to mean November 2, 2018.

As an initial matter, it appears that Defendant fully understands his obligation to comply 

with the discovery order and is engaged in that compliance. Thus, it is premature for the Court to 

consider evidentiary and issue preclusion matters before the time of trial, and thus the Court 

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s initial request for issue and evidentiary sanctions at 

trial, as Plaintiff concedes is appropriate. Should Defendant continue to fail to comply with his 

obligation to produce the documents, Plaintiff may seek to exclude the related evidence at trial 

through motions in limine. But, for now, with trial set in April 2019, there is sufficient time to 

complete the deficient discovery.

 

1

 This concession is the only piece of information the Court considers from pages 11 and 12 of 

Defendant’s opposition, as the Court’s standing order requires that oppositions of this type not 

exceed ten pages.

Case 5:16-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 11/14/18 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Next, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions for the costs of this motion and the additional 

effort required to garner Defendant’s compliance. To the extent costs are sought for any 

amendment of Plaintiff’s expert discovery report or any deposition of Defendant related to his 

financial status, the motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court finds that Plaintiff would 

have had to expend these costs even if Defendant had complied with the original May deadline. 

The same is true as to any discovery dispute that might arise related to the scope of Defendant’s 

eventual production. Because Plaintiff would have had to litigate the dispute even had Defendant 

met the deadline, any request for costs associated with any such dispute is DENIED WITH 

PREJUDICE. However, to the extent costs are sought related to this motion or future efforts to 

garner Defendant’s compliance with the court order to produce these documents—such as costs 

associated with meet and confers or drafting stipulations—the motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to Plaintiff bringing a motion seeking costs that sets out a specific request, including 

a sum certain, that the Court could award. While the Court finds such a request reasonable, it will 

not write Plaintiff a blank check by granting his request without such specifics.

Though Plaintiff’s motion is denied, the Court recognizes that Defendant may not yet have 

produced the required documents and that fact and expert discovery have already closed, such that 

Plaintiff can no longer take Defendant’s deposition relating to this issue and can no longer amend 

its expert report. As such, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint stipulation on or before 

November 21, 2018 that sets forth a schedule in advance of trial that can remedy the prejudice 

rendered on Plaintiff due to Defendant’s failure to comply with the deadline. To the extent the 

schedule includes a deposition of Defendant, the deposition shall be limited only to Defendant’s 

financial status and net worth. The stipulation should include, but perhaps will not be limited to, 

new deadlines to produce the full set of documents, file an amended expert report and rebuttal, 

depose Plaintiff, and file any related motion to compel or discovery dispute with the magistrate 

judge.

Case 5:16-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 11/14/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 11/14/18 Page 4 of 4