Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01205/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01205-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GROUPON, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

(Re: Docket No. 84)

The better part of a year ago, Plaintiffs William and Frances Mosley served discovery 

requests on Defendant Groupon, Inc., to which Groupon and its counsel never responded.1 Over 

Groupon’s implausible objection that service had been ineffective, the court granted Plaintiffs’

motion to compel responses to these requests.

2

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), the court 

awarded Plaintiffs attorney’s fees incurred in filing their motion, and, as required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 36(a)(3), it deemed admitted Plaintiffs’ requests for admission.

3

 Soon afterwards, Groupon 

switched to new counsel,4 who moved to withdraw those admissions.5 The court granted that 

request as well.

6

 

1

See Docket No. 52 at 1-2.

2

See id. at 2.

3

See id.

4

See Docket No. 70.

5

See Docket No. 69.

6

See Docket No. 83.

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 90 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

Plaintiffs now move for sanctions under Rule 37 in the form of attorney’s fees for all this 

motion practice.7 The court already awarded those fees for the initial motion to compel, and at the 

hearing on the sanctions motion the parties informed the court that Groupon no longer disputes the 

amount of those fees. That portion of the motion therefore is DENIED as moot. The only 

remaining point of contention, then, is whether the court should award Plaintiffs their fees for 

opposing Groupon’s motion to withdraw.

That inquiry starts with the Federal Rules. Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that a party 

prevailing on its motion to compel must be awarded its “reasonable expenses incurred in making 

the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Other subsections of Rule 37 go further. Rule 37(b)(2)(C) 

requires a party disobeying a court order to “pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s 

fees, caused by the failure.” Rule 37(d)(3) imposes sanctions in the same vein for a party that does 

not attend its own deposition, serve answers to interrogatories or respond to a request for 

inspection. Plaintiffs rely on the latter provision.8 But although Rule 37 lists exhaustively the 

conduct that can lead to an award of attorney’s fees, the failure to respond to a request for 

admission is not among them.

9

 Rule 36 includes no such provision either. The only reasonable 

conclusion is that Rule 37 does not authorize the court to sanction a party for failing to respond to 

a request for admission.

Plaintiffs have identified no case law to the contrary. They point to a number of cases

awarding, or at least contemplating, such a sanction,

10 but none of these cases cites Rule 37 as the 

 

7

See Docket No. 84.

8

See id. at 2.

9 Rule 37(c)(2) does impose attorney’s fee sanctions for a party’s failure to admit a matter later 

proven to be true, but that is not at issue here.

10 See, e.g., Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir. 1995); Archway Ins. Servs., LLC 

v. Harris, Case No. 11-cv-01173, 2013 WL 6158369, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 21, 2013); Upchurch v. 

USTNET, Inc., 160 F.R.D. 131, 133-34 (D. Ore. 1995); Mid-Valley Bank v. N. Valley Bank, 764 F. 

Supp. 1377, 1391 (E.D. Cal. 1991).

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 90 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

basis for the sanction. Instead, as one of Plaintiffs’ cases makes clear, these courts acted pursuant 

to their “inherent power to levy sanctions for abusive litigation tactics.”

11

 Such an award must “be 

preceded by a finding of bad faith, or conduct tantamount to bad faith.”

12

 Plaintiffs do not argue 

that Groupon’s conduct rose to that level.13 For all the reasons above, Plaintiffs’ motion for 

sanctions is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

11 Archway Insurance, 2013 WL 6158369, at *2 (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 

U.S. 752, 765-66 (1980)).

12 Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 

(9th Cir. 2001)).

13 See Docket No. 86 at 2 (suggesting that “[t]he fact[s] of this case meet even this higher bar,” but 

providing no support for the assertion).

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 90 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 3