Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

APPLIED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE -

INTERROGATORIES AND

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[DOC. NO. 93]

vs.

MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed on

November 16, 2011. (Doc. No. 93). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on November 28, 2011. (Doc.

No. 99). Defendants filed a Reply on December 5, 2011. (Doc. No. 104). The instant dispute

stems from Plaintiff’s answers to certain Interrogatories. Plaintiff declined to provide substantive 

answers on the grounds that an appropriate answer would require confidentiality under the terms of

the protective order governing this case. At the time the Interrogatories were due to be answered,

an Order to Show Cause hearing was pending regarding Defendants’ compliance with the

protective order. Plaintiff, in its answers, said that it would supplement its answers once the issue

of Defendants’ continued compliance with the protective order was resolved. The Order to Show

Cause was heard on November 8, 2011, and the Court’s Order Imposing Sanctions against certain

Defendants was filed on November 9, 2011. (Doc. Nos. 87, 89). 

- 1 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 114 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff admits that it withheld a substantive response until after the hearing. According to

Plaintiff, following the hearing, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with counsel to discuss its

responses to the Interrogatories. Instead, according to Plaintiff, Defendants filed this Motion. 

Plaintiff claims that it has supplemented its responses. Defendants claim that Plaintiff had no

authority to unilaterally decide not to answer the Interrogatories and should be sanctioned for its

actions. Defendants do not appear to be complaining about the supplemental responses. 

The Court held that Defendants did intentionally violate the protective order in this case. 

(Doc. No. 89). Plaintiff’s concern in withholding responses subject to the protective order was

well-founded. Defendants are correct, however, that Plaintiff should have sought an order from the

Court extending the time to provide substantive responses. Inasmuch as the supplemental

responses have not generated a complaint and were not prompted by the filing of this Motion, the

Court declines to grant the Motion and will not impose sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: December 21, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 114 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 2