Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05452/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05452-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

LOGTALE, LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IKOR, INC. ET AL,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-11-05452 CW (DMR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AND

AWARDING SANCTIONS

On March 19, 2013, the parties submitted a joint letter brief regarding Plaintiff Logtale,

Ltd.’s (“Logtale”) motion to compel responses to discovery served on Defendant IKOR, Inc.

(“IKOR”). [Docket No. 55 (Jt. Letter).] The court conducted a hearing on the matter on April 18,

2013. Counsel for Logtale was present. Counsel for IKOR did not appear. This order summarizes

the rulings made by the court on the record during the April 18, 2013 hearing.

I. Discussion

Plaintiff served its first sets of interrogatories, requests for production (“RFPs”), and requests

for admission on Defendant on December 4, 2012. Defendant’s responses and/or objections to

Plaintiff’s discovery were due on January 7, 2013. On January 4, 2013, Defendant served responses

to the requests for admission and represented that responses to the interrogatories and RFPs were in

progress. Defendant did not serve responses to the interrogatories and RFPs by the January 7, 2013

deadline. (Jt. Letter 1-2.)

Case 3:11-cv-05452-EDL Document 59 Filed 04/22/13 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

 In January and February 2013, in response to Plaintiff’s inquiries, Defendant’s counsel made

numerous representations regarding when he would serve Defendant’s responses to the outstanding

discovery. Despite these representations, Defendant did not serve any responses, nor did it seek a

stipulation to extend the response deadlines. (Jt. Letter 2.) Finally, on March 15, 2013, Defendant

served Plaintiff with late written responses to the RFPs, along with some responsive documents, but

Defendant’s counsel admitted to some “gaps in the production of emails.” (Jt. Letter Ex. F.) To

date, Defendant has not supplemented its document production, nor has it ever served any responses

to the interrogatories. In the joint letter, Defendant’s only explanation for its failure to respond to

the discovery is that “[t]he delay has been the result of acquiring information from several different

sources within the company.” (Jt. Letter 3.) At the hearing on this matter, Plaintiff’s counsel

confirmed that Defendant has never requested an extension of time in which to provide responses to

the outstanding discovery. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 provide that a party must serve responses and

any objections to interrogatories and RFPs within 30 days after being served with the discovery. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). Failure to timely respond to discovery requests generally

constitutes a waiver of any objections thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“[a]ny ground [for

objecting to an interrogatory] not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good

cause, excuses the failure.”); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473

(“failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any

objection.”). Pursuant to Rule 37, a party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). If the court grants the motion, it shall require the party whose conduct

necessitated the motion to pay the moving party’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the

motion, including attorneys’ fees, unless the failure to respond was substantially justified. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

Here, it is undisputed that Defendant has not served responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories,

even though such responses were due in January 2013. Further, even though Defendant has served

written responses to the RFPs, the response came two months after it was due, and Defendant admits

that it has not made a full production of documents. As Defendant has not shown good cause for its

Case 3:11-cv-05452-EDL Document 59 Filed 04/22/13 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

failure to respond, any objections to the outstanding discovery are waived. In addition, the court

finds that Defendant’s failure to respond was not substantially justified. Accordingly, and

particularly in light of the fact that Defendant failed to appear at the hearing on this matter, the court

awards sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A). At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that his

hourly rate is $700, and represented that he personally spent one hour preparing the joint letter and

that he traveled from his office in San Francisco to attend the hearing in Oakland on this matter. 

Therefore, the court awards Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,400, representing attorneys’ fees

incurred in preparing the joint letter and traveling to and appearing at the hearing. 

II. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to its interrogatories and RFPs is GRANTED. 

Defendant shall serve complete written responses and shall produce all responsive documents within

fourteen days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is awarded $1,400 in sanctions which must be paid

by Defendant and/or Defendant’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2013

 DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 3:11-cv-05452-EDL Document 59 Filed 04/22/13 Page 3 of 3