Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02236/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02236-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
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

1Although there is a Certificate of Service on Defendant Lopez, she did not make a submission in

opposition to ETH’s motion. 

1 05cv2236

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS,

INC.,

Civil No. 05cv2236-W (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

AS TO DEFENDANTS BEARS AND

LOPEZ; AND CREDITING

DEFENDANT BEARS WITH $1417.50

TOWARDS AN OUTSTANDING

DISCOVERY SANCTION

v.

NOVEON SYSTEMS, INC.; MADELINE

LOPEZ; and JAMES ALBERT BEARS,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Enterprise Technology Holdings’ (“ETH”) motion to compel

discovery responses and/or for sanctions against Defendants James Bears (“Bears”) and Madeline

Lopez (“Lopez”), both in pro se. The parties submitted letter briefs in support of their positions

directly to chambers,1 and the Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers

submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). The Plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

ETH took the deposition of Defendant Bears on April 16, 2008. Bears was asked to identify

his current employer and would not provide the information asserting it was irrelevant to the claims

and defenses in this litigation. Bears was informed that he could make his objection, but he was

Case 3:05-cv-02236-MMA-CAB Document 135 Filed 06/03/08 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

 Ms. Ahuja states that the email address to which Bears sent the information was “an older email

address” that she “no longer use[s].” In response, Bears provided the Court with an email sent to

him by Ms. Ahuja from the purportedly unused address as recently as March 20, 2008. Ms. Ahuja

asserts that the March email reflecting her old account is a technically error within her firm’s email

account. If so, it is an error Dillon & Gerardi should correct forthwith to avoid problems like this

in the future. 

2 05cv2236

instructed he was still required to respond. Bears, who is a pro se litigant, declined to do so on the

record and wanted to consult with counsel. Bears then provided the responsive information by email

on April 19, 2008 to counsel for Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Sunjina Ahuja, Esq., contends she did not received this email and

therefore filed the motion to compel.2 Counsel declared that she sent Bears an email on April 29, 2008

informing Bears that if he did not provide the employment information on or before May 1, 2008,

plaintiff would be forced to compel this information from the courts. She did not speak with Bears

before filing the motion. If she had she would have realized she was already in possession of the

information being compelled for almost a month before the motion was submitted. Plaintiff’s motion

to compel and for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

On March 25, 2008, Plaintiff served Defendant Lopez, in pro se, with its Second Request

for Production. Lopez has not responded. Plaintiff therefore moves for evidentiary sanctions against

Lopez. Lopez filed no opposition; however Plaintiff never met and conferred with Lopez before

bringing the motion. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has not certified that she met and conferred with Defendant Lopez

regarding this motion as required by the Local Rules. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, on April 30,

2008, she sent a letter to Lopez as plaintiff’s “effort to meet and confer” on this dispute. The Local

Rules unambiguously state that “Under no circumstances may the parties satisfy the meet and confer

requirement by exchanging written correspondence.” CivLR 26.1.a. Plaintiff has not satisfied the

meet and confer requirements of this court and the motion for sanctions against Lopez will therefore

not be considered. Id. The motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions is DENIED without

prejudice.

Case 3:05-cv-02236-MMA-CAB Document 135 Filed 06/03/08 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 05cv2236

Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to properly meet and confer with theDefendantsbefore bringing

this motion resulted in unnecessary motion practice against Defendant Bears and a non-compliant

motion against Defendant Lopez. Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have incurred $1,417.50 in expenses

and costs against each Defendant in the pursuing this unnecessary/improper motion. Defendant Bears

is a pro se litigant and was required to spend his time and effort responding to a motion that was filed

improvidently. The Court finds it appropriate to CREDIT Defendant Bears for his time unnecessarily

incurred by this motion practice. Defendant Bears is therefore credited $1,417.50 toward the

outstanding discovery sanction imposed on him in the Court’s Order of March 13, 2008 [Doc. No.

124], leaving a balance due by Defendant Bears of $1323.75.

As a final matter, the parties are directed to correct all future filings to reflect the proper

Civil Case number for this matter: 05cv2236-W (CAB). Plaintiff’s counsel is further instructed that

as to any future filings it is unnecessary to file a request for Judicial Notice of pleadings, motions and

orders docketed in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02236-MMA-CAB Document 135 Filed 06/03/08 Page 3 of 3