Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03401/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03401-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

JOHN A. RUSSO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-3401 MMC (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

eNOM’S MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION;

GRANTING DEFENDANT eNOM’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND

VACATING HEARING

(Docket Nos. 64-65)

Defendant eNom, Inc. has moved the Court to compel Plaintiff John A. Russo to provide

responses to interrogatories and requests for production and to sanction Mr. Russo for his failure to

provide the requested discovery. The hearing was noticed for April 4, 2008, but no opposition was

filed in accordance with the Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (“Any opposition to a motion

must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date.”). Having reviewed the

papers that have been filed (i.e., eNom’s motion and accompanying submissions), and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to compel and the request for monetary

sanctions.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

As noted above, at issue with eNom’s motion to compel is Mr. Russo’s failure to provide

responses to interrogatories and document requests. eNom has provided competent evidence that it

propounded this discovery on October 19, 2007, see Doran Decl., Ex. C-E, and that no responses

were provided by Mr. Russo. See Doran Decl. ¶ 12. Because Mr. Russo has failed to oppose the

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 85 Filed 03/21/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion and because there is no evidence that Mr. Russo ever provided responses to the discovery

requests at any point, the motion to compel is granted. Mr. Russo must provide responses within

two weeks of the date of this order. In his responses, Mr. Russo has waived any objections.

B. Motion for Sanctions

Based on Mr. Russo’s failure to respond to the discovery propounded, eNom asks for

monetary sanctions. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d), 

[t]he court where the action is pending may, on motion, order

sanctions if:

. . . .

(ii) a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under

Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve

its answers, objections, or written response.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A). The court may issue any of the sanctions provided for in Rule

37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) or, “[i]nstead of or in addition to these sanctions, the court must require the party

failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, caused by that failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).

In this case, monetary sanctions are appropriate. Mr. Russo has made no effort to justify his

failure to respond to the discovery propounded, and there are no circumstances of which the Court is

aware that would make an award of expenses unjust. Indeed, the Court takes note that Mr. Russo

has engaged in the same unjustifiable behavior with respect to discovery propounded by a different

defendant in the case.

The only question remaining for the Court is whether the expenses requested by eNom -- i.e.,

$2,662 in attorney’s fees -- is reasonable. See Carlson Decl. ¶ 10. This fee was calculated based on

the 10.5 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers. Carlson Decl. ¶ 10. While the time

spent was not unreasonable, defense counsel has not explained why the hourly rates requested are

reasonable (e.g., appropriate in light of the attorneys’ experience). Accordingly, the Court shall

grant eNom’s request for fees but limits the award to $2,000.

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 85 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants eNom’s motion to compel and for monetary

sanctions in the amount of $2,000.

The hearing on the motions is hereby VACATED.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 64 and 65.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 85 Filed 03/21/08 Page 3 of 3