Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02344/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02344-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Notice of Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

15CV2344-GPC(JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Everett L. Thomas and Martha A. 

Thomas,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo 

Home Mortgage; Barrett Daffin 

Frappier & Weiss, LLP ,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15CV2344-GPC(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY 

RESPONSES [DOC. NO. 41]

On January 3, 2017, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a discovery 

motion, requesting the Court compel Plaintiffs Everett L. Thomas and Martha A. 

Thomas respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. [Doc. No. 41.] Although 

captioned as a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute, the motion 

was actually filed unilaterally by Defendant because counsel for Plaintiffs, Joseph 

La Costa, Esq., did not respond to Defendant’s efforts to obtain Plaintiffs’ portion 

of the discovery motion, as required by the undersigned’s Chambers Rules. [Id., 

Decl. of David Newman, ¶ 3.]

The discovery requests at issue are Defendant’s first sets of 

Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production of 

Case 3:15-cv-02344-GPC-JMA Document 42 Filed 01/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

15CV2344-GPC(JMA)

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

Documents, which were served on October 24, 2016. [Id., ¶ 2.] When Plaintiffs 

failed to provide any responses or objections by the deadline to do so, counsel 

for Defendant, David Newman, Esq., undertook efforts to discuss the matter with 

Mr. La Costa, both by telephone and email. [Id.] During a telephone call between 

counsel that occurred on December 12, 2016, Mr. La Costa represented to Mr. 

Newman he would provide responses without objections by December 16, 2016. 

[Id.]

When the responses were still not received, Mr. Newman attempted to 

correspond further with Mr. La Costa. [Id., ¶ 3.] In an email sent December 21, 

2016, Mr. Newman informed Mr. La Costa that Defendant would seek judicial 

intervention, provided him with Defendant’s portion of the discovery motion, and 

requested he provide Plaintiffs’ portion of the joint motion by December 31, 2016. 

[Id.] Mr. La Costa did not respond. [Id.] On January 3, 2017, having still not 

received any discovery responses, Plaintiffs’ portion of the discovery motion, or 

any other response from Mr. La Costa, Defendant filed the discovery motion 

unilaterally. Since the discovery motion was filed, the Court’s staff has contacted 

Mr. La Costa several times by telephone. During these discussions Mr. La Costa 

did not provide any substantial justification for his clients’ failure to timely provide 

the discovery responses, or indicate his clients oppose the discovery motion. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to GRANT Defendant’s 

motion to compel. Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete responses, without 

objections, to Defendant’s first sets of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, 

and Requests for Production of Documents, and shall produce all responsive 

documents, by no later than February 3, 2017. 

When a motion to compel discovery is granted, or discovery is provided 

after its filing, the Court must, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require 

the party or attorney whose conduct necessitated the motion, or both, pay the 

movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion unless the failure 

Case 3:15-cv-02344-GPC-JMA Document 42 Filed 01/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

15CV2344-GPC(JMA)

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

to provide discovery was substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 

Defendant has requested the Court impose a sanction of $1,100 for four hours of 

attorney time incurred while meeting and conferring (1 hour); drafting the motion 

and coordinating the filing (2 hours); and attending any hearing (1 hour). [Id., ¶ 

4.] As outlined above, Mr. La Costa and his clients have had ample opportunity 

to respond to Defendant’s motion to compel. A copy of Defendant’s portion of 

what should have been a joint discovery motion was first provided to Mr. La 

Costa on December 21, 2016. At that time, Plaintiffs could, and should, have 

contributed to the discovery motion by providing their responsive arguments, as 

required by the undersigned’s Chambers Rules. Instead of availing themselves of 

their opportunity to be heard, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to respond at all and the 

discovery motion was eventually filed unilaterally. 

The discovery motion has now been pending for over three weeks, since 

January 3, 2017, allowing Plaintiffs another window of opportunity to make their 

position known to the Court. During this time the Court’s staff has participated in 

multiple telephone conversations about Defendant’s motion to compel with Mr. 

La Costa and, on one occasion, with Mr. La Costa and Mr. Newman. Despite 

having ample time and opportunity to do so, Plaintiffs, however, still have not 

taken any steps to oppose the motion to compel and request for sanctions or 

provide substantial justification for not providing timely discovery responses or 

responsive documents. The Court, therefore, ORDERS Mr. La Costa and 

Plaintiffs Everett L. Thomas and Martha A. Thomas compensate Defendant the 

sum of $550.00 for the two hours of attorney time incurred by Mr. Newman in 

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:15-cv-02344-GPC-JMA Document 42 Filed 01/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

15CV2344-GPC(JMA)

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

preparing Defendant’s discovery motion.1 The sanction shall be remitted to 

Defendant no later than February 10, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2017

 

1

 The sanction amount is limited to time Mr. Newman spent preparing the motion. A hearing 

was not held so the requested sanction award is reduced by the hour Mr. Newman estimated 

he would have spent in attendance. The hour of time Mr. Newman spent meeting and 

conferring with Mr. La Costa regarding the discovery requests is also not included in the 

sanction award.

Case 3:15-cv-02344-GPC-JMA Document 42 Filed 01/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4