Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00254/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00254-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

JTS, LLC d/b/a JOHNSON’S TIRE )

SERVICE, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 3:14-cv-00254 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN ) [Re: Motions at Dockets 68, 75]

TYRES, INC. )

)

Defendants. )

)

At docket 68, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions or, alternatively, a motion

to compel based upon Plaintiff’s failure to provide initial disclosures as required by

Rule 26(a)(1). Plaintiff responds at docket 71. Defendants reply at docket 74. 

Defendants then filed a motion to compel at docket 75 based upon Plaintiff’s failure to

respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff did not file a response. Oral argument was not

requested and would not be of additional assistance to the court.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES (Motion at docket 68)

Plaintiff filed its complaint on December 24, 2014. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff’s

attorney, Bryon E. Collins, was suspended from the practice of law. Attorney Lance

Wells entered an appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf. On August 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a

motion to stay proceedings and deadlines, which the court granted. Thereafter, a new

attorney, Vikram Chaobal, entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. The

Case 3:14-cv-00254-JWS Document 83 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 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

proceedings remained stayed until March of 2016 at which time the court issued an

amended scheduling and planning order.1 Pursuant to the amended order, the parties

were to exchange initial disclosures by April 4, 2016. Plaintiff did not file its disclosures. 

Rather, Mr. Chaobal withdrew from the case, and, in May of 2016, Plaintiff’s current

counsel entered an appearance. Plaintiff did not file any request to extend the Rule 26

discovery deadline. On June 8, 2016, almost two months after the deadline, Plaintiff

provided only 122 pages of discovery consisting of an internet printout of Defendants’

“interim report” from January through September of 2014; Defendants’ 2013 annual

report; some previously discovered affidavits; and a few emails and correspondence.2

Plaintiff did not provide any documentation bearing on the damages Plaintiff alleged in

its complaint, as required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and as specifically requested by

Defendants’ counsel in correspondence. The parties conferred on the matter, but

Plaintiff nonetheless did not produce thorough initial disclosures. Defendants then filed

their motion for sanctions or to compel at docket 68, asking that the court preclude

Plaintiff from using any subsequently disclosed information or witnesses or,

alternatively, order Plaintiff to provide the required discovery and award attorneys’ fees

to Defendants.

In its response, Plaintiff acknowledges that it has failed to adequately produced

the required initial discovery. It states that the reason for the delay has been due to the

change in counsel and bankruptcy proceedings. It argues, however, that it has recently

started producing documents and that on July 22, 2016, it produced “binders” of

records.3

 Plaintiff asserts that “[b]y the time the court . . . [rules] on this matter, defense

1Doc. 54.

2Doc. 69 at p. 3.

3Doc. 71 at p. 3.

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00254-JWS Document 83 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 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

counsel will have all Rule 26(a) disclosures [fully] availed, included a damages

computation.”4 Moreover, it argues that any delay has been harmless. 

Defendants filed their reply on August 8, 2016. They challenge the adequacy of

Plaintiff’s disclosures related to damage calculations that were provided after Plaintiff

filed its response. They assert that while a number of financial spreadsheets have

been produced, the spreadsheets do not provide any meaningful computation of

damages, and there is no other support documentation provided. 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that Plaintiff provide a computation of any damages

claimed and allow for inspection and copying of any supporting documentation. A

computation assumes some sort of analysis or assessment.5

 Plaintiff has not 

adequately placed Defendants on notice as to the amount of damages claimed nor has

it adequately explained or supported the alleged amount as required under the rule.6

Therefore, Defendants’ motion at docket 68 is GRANTED as follows: 

Given that the litigation is still in the discovery phase,7 the court will provide

Plaintiff with additional time to comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) rather than sanction

Plaintiff by precluding any evidence of damages at this time. Plaintiff is directed to

provide a computation of damages, along with any supporting documentation, on or

before October 3, 2016. Plaintiff is put on notice that if there are further delays in

providing the ordered discovery, the court will preclude Plaintiff from using late-provided

evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial.8

4Doc. 71 at p. 4.

5Maharaj v. Cal. Bank & Trust, 288 F.R.D. 458, 463 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

6See Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[B]y its very

terms Rule 26(a) requires more than providing– without any explanation– undifferentiated

financial statements; it requires a ‘computation,’ supported by documents.”).

7At docket 73 the court extended the discovery deadlines in accordance with the request

at docket 66.

8Fed. R. Evid. 37(c).

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-00254-JWS Document 83 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 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

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY RESPONSES (Motion at docket 75)

At docket 75, Defendants request that the court compel Plaintiff to respond to

the discovery requests propounded by Defendants on June 30, 2016. Plaintiff did not

respond to the motion to compel and, therefore, Defendants’ motion is well taken.9

Their motion at docket 75 is GRANTED. However, because the court has provided

Plaintiff with additional time to comply with its discovery obligations under Rule 26, the

court will also extend Plaintiff’s deadline for answering Defendants’ requests for

admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production. Plaintiff is directed to serve its

answers and written responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for

admissions and to respond to their requests for production on or before October 3,

2016. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) the court awards Defendants their reasonable

attorneys’ fees and expenses directly related to the drafting of the motions at

dockets 68 and 75. Defendants are directed to file an accounting, setting forth the

specific amount requested and supporting calculations on or before October 3, 2016. 

Plaintiff may file a response within seven days of Defendants’ filing. 

DATED this 21st day of September 2016.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 D.AK. L.R. 7.1 (e)(1).

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-00254-JWS Document 83 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 4