Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01222/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01222-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

1 06cv1222

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAW INDUSTRIES, INC., a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

HANGER ORTHOPEDIC GROUP, INC. and

OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE, USA, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1222-JAH(NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL AS MOOT AND DENYING

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On December 5, 2008, Defendant Hangar Orthopedic Group, Inc. (“Hangar”) filed a Motion to

Compel Plaintiff Daw Industries, Inc. (“Daw”) to provide response to requests for production of

documents and a Request for Monetary Sanctions. The court vacated the January 7, 2009 hearing date

and now decides the motion on the papers submitted. For the following reasons, the Court Denies

Hanger’s Motion to Compel as moot and Denies the Motion for Sanctions.

On August 11, 2008, Hanger propounded document requests upon Daw, requiring Daw to

respond by September 15, 2008. (Wooten Decl. Exh. A.) On October 15, 2008, the court entered a

Protective Order governing the use and dissemination of confidential information in this litigation. 

(Docket # 65.) Daw provided responsive documents on November 20, 2008. (Wooten Decl. ¶ 10.) 

Daw did not, however, provide a signed response with the production. (Id.) On December 2, 2008,

Hanger left Daw a phone message stating that a response was needed. (Id. at ¶ 11.) The same day

Hanger sent Daw a letter stating that the meet and confer had been futile and Hanger “had no choice”

Case 3:06-cv-01222-JAH-NLS Document 72 Filed 01/08/09 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

2 06cv1222

but to move to compel and for sanctions. (Id at ¶ 12.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 states that if a Court grants a motion to compel 

or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed- the

court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . or attorney

advising that conduct, or both to pay to the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in

making the motion, including attorneys’ fees. But the court must not order this payment

if (I) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure

or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party’s non-disclosure, response or

objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of

expenses unjust. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4)(A)(emphasis added). 

In this case, an award of expenses would be unjust because Hanger did not engage in a sufficient

meet and confer process and because Daw’s failure to provide a verified response was substantially

justified. First, a single phone call followed by a letter the same day concluding that the meet and

confer effort had failed does not constitute a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute without need of

court intervention. Second, as Daw explains in its opposition, the delay in providing documents and a

verified response was, in part, due to the need for a protective order. The delay was also partially

caused by the extensive foreign travel by one of Daw’s two senior executives, Hugo Belzidsky. 

(Belzidsky Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) Thus, the delay was substantially justified. Moreover, Hanger does not assert

that the document production is inadequate in any way. Finally, the verified responses confirm what

Daw told Hangar, that Daw has produced all responsive documents without objection. (McIntyre Decl.

¶ 8.)

While the court does not condone Daw’s failure to timely comply with its discovery obligations,

the circumstances presented in this motion make the award of attorney’s fees unjust. Nonetheless, the

parties are both hereby put on notice that any future unjustified failure to comply with discovery

obligations will result in sanctions, when a motion is preceded by an adequate meet and confer process.

For the foregoing reasons, It Is Hereby Ordered that Hanger’s Motion to Compel is Denied as

moot and Hanger’s Motion for sanction is Denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2009

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01222-JAH-NLS Document 72 Filed 01/08/09 Page 2 of 2