Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520-8/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA C. HO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK PINSUKANJANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06520-PJH (TSH)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 93

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Rita C. Ho, Successor Trustee of the Ho 2012 Revocable Living Trust, moves for 

sanctions against Defendants Mark Pinsukanjana and Bryan Yedinak under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(b)(2) for their alleged failure to comply with their discovery obligations. ECF No. 

93. The motion has been referred to the undersigned.1 ECF No. 94. Defendants filed an 

Opposition (ECF No. 106) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 111). The Court finds this matter 

suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the May 23, 2019 hearing. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record 

in this case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court GRANT IN PART and DENY IN 

PART Plaintiff’s motion for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

This case concerns the photographic works of a now-deceased artist, Fan Ho. His wife, 

Plaintiff Rita Ho, and Defendants, who worked with Mr. Ho for over ten years to sell his works, 

disagree on who holds the rights to the negatives, prints, and other media formats of Mr. Ho’s 

 

1 Although the motion was referred for resolution, the undersigned issues this Report and 

Recommendation given Plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions and discovery beyond the 

deadline established in the presiding judge’s case management order.

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 17
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

photographic works (the “Works”). As part of the case, Plaintiff seeks the identity and disposition 

of the Works Mr. Ho entrusted to Defendants to sell. She alleges Defendants have failed to make 

payments on these Works and have avoided disclosing information regarding the Works “to 

further their fraudulent behavior.” Mot. at 1-2. 

On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff served “Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for the Production 

of Documents and Things,” seeking, among other things, financial records associated with the 

disposition of the Works. Baden Decl., Exs. A & B, ECF No. 93-2. 2 Defendants served 

responses on February 23, 2018, conditioning production of materials on the entry of a protective 

order. Id., Exs. C & D. After the Court entered a stipulated protective order, see ECF No. 47, 

Defendants served supplemental responses to the RFPs on April 13, 2018. Baden Decl., Ex. F. 

On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel, Allen J. Baden, wrote Defendants’ counsel, J. 

James Li, calling the supplemental responses “woefully inadequate” and requesting records 

associated with the disposition of the Works. Id., Ex. G. Defendants subsequently served three 

more batches of supplemental responses, but still failed to produce records associated with the 

disposition of the Works. Id., Ex. H-J; Mot. at 3. 

On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff took Mr. Pinsukanjana’s deposition, who acknowledged the 

existence of documents and things absent from the responses, including hard drives and other 

digital media containing the Works, lists of and invoices for buyers and resellers of the Works, 

copies of tax returns related to the sale of the Works, and financial records kept in the ordinary 

course of business in Defendants’ gallery office and at an offsite storage room in San Francisco. 

Baden Decl., Ex. K (Pinsukanjana Dep.) at 25:4-12, 78:1-80:9, 134:12-18, 204:11-14. After the 

deposition, Mr. Baden wrote Mr. Li with an itemized list of documents and things still sought by 

Plaintiff. Id., Ex. L. 

On August 15, 2018, following Mr. Li’s withdrawal from the case, the Court entered an 

order staying the proceedings for three months. ECF Nos. 59, 60. On October 31, 2018, 

Defendants’ newly-appointed attorney of record, Houston Watson II, filed his Notice of 

 

2 The requests to Pinsukanjana and Yedinak are identical, so the Court will refer to them together 

as the “RFPs” for ease of reference. 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 17
3

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

Appearance. ECF No. 62. Mr. Baden wrote Mr. Watson on December 13, 2018 to remind him of 

his obligation to supplement Defendants’ production. Baden Decl., Ex. M.

On February 11, 2019, the parties submitted a joint letter brief in which Plaintiff moved to 

compel the production of documents in response to her January 18, 2018 RFPs. ECF No. 83. 

After a telephonic hearing on February 20, 2019, the undersigned ordered Defendants to produce 

documents responsive to RFPs 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18-23 and 25, finding they seek relevant documents 

and are proportional to the needs of the case. ECF No. 90 (“Order”). For RFPs 3 and 16, the 

undersigned ordered Defendants to produce responsive documents from 2006 to the present. For 

RFP 25 – which seeks “all documents upon which Defendants intend to rely relating to this action 

proceeding to trial” – the undersigned ordered Defendants to produce all responsive documents 

regardless of time frame, since Plaintiff is entitled to any documents Defendants are going to use 

at trial. For RFPs 1, 4-10, 12-15, and 18-23, the undersigned ordered Defendants to produce 

responsive documents from 2012 to the present. Based on Defendants’ counsel’s representation 

that Defendants could complete document production within 14 days, the undersigned ordered 

Defendants to produce the documents within that timeframe.

On March 1, 2019, Mr. Watson’s paralegal advised Mr. Baden that Mr. Watson had been 

hospitalized and requested an extension to March 11, 2019. Baden Decl., Ex. P. Mr. Baden 

consented to Defendants’ request. Id., Ex. Q. However, on March 7, 2019, Mr. Watson’s 

colleague, Hillary Johns, requested a further extension of time to comply with the Court’s order, to 

March 13, 2019. Id., Ex. R. Mr. Baden refused, citing his concern that the supplemental 

production would again be incomplete. Id., Ex. S. 

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff received amended responses to the RFPs. Id., Ex. T. 

Plaintiff contends that numerous documents are missing from the production, including any 

records reflecting the disposition of the Works, details regarding original photographs Defendants 

admitted to having in their possession, copies of Works produced by Defendants after termination 

of the parties’ representation agreement, perpetual calendars incorporating the Works, and an 

agreement between Defendants and Samsung that purportedly granted Samsung the right to use 

two of the Works as a television screensaver. Mot. at 5-6; see also Baden Decl., Ex U (list of the 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 17
4

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

Works in Defendants’ possession as of 1/1/2015). In response, Mr. Baden wrote Defendants’ 

counsel in another attempt to secure the requested documents and to propose a new production 

deadline of March 22, 2019. Baden Decl., Ex. W. On March 22, 2019, Mr. Baden again wrote to 

Defendants’ counsel and agreed to extend the deadline to March 25, 2019. Id., Ex. X. 

On March 24, 2019, Ms. Johns wrote Mr. Baden to advise that Defendants had ordered 

bank statements responsive to the RFPs and that she did not know how long it would take to 

obtain the statements. Id., Ex. Y. Mr. Baden responded that the bank statements without 

underlying data explaining each transaction were of little value and repeated his demand for 

documents concerning disposition of the Works since 2012. Id. Ms. Johns advised that the bank’s 

estimate for production of the bank statements was five to seven business days. Id., Ex. Z. 

On March 26, 2019, the parties held a telephone conference to discuss the ongoing 

discovery dispute. Mot. at 6. At that time, Mr. Baden consented to another extension for 

Defendants to comply with the Court’s order, but on March 28, 2019, Ms. Johns wrote him to 

advise that her schedule would not allow for production of the requested documents until April 1, 

2019, after the close of non-expert discovery. Id., Ex. AA. 

On March 29, 2019, Defendants produced the Samsung license agreement and advised the 

remaining documents would be forthcoming. Biden Decl., Ex. AB. In response, Mr. Baden 

advised Ms. Johns of his intention to move for a finding of sanctions if Defendants did not 

complete production by April 1, 2019. Id., Ex. AC. 

On April 1, 2019, Defendants produced documents marked Bates Nos. ARCH_00439-

00890 in a PDF titled “Receipts.” Mot. at 7. According to Plaintiff, only two of the documents 

related to Defendants’ disposition of the Works, none concern their sale of Works, and there is no 

way for Plaintiff to know whether the receipts are relevant because nothing ties them to 

Defendants’ representation of Fan Ho. Id. Plaintiff states that a keyword search of the records for 

“Fan Ho” identified only a single transaction for shipping Works via air freight on December 12, 

2012. Id. (citing Baden Decl., Ex AD). Later that day, Mr. Baden wrote Defendants’ counsel 

regarding production deficiencies, including redactions without a privilege log and incomplete 

documents and/or partial scans. Baden Decl., Ex. AE.

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 17
5

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

On April 2, 2019, Defendants supplemented the production with documents bearing Bates 

Nos. ARCH_00891-01670 in a PDF file titled “Bank Statements.” Mot. at 7. According to 

Plaintiff, the bank statements show numerous deposits and withdrawals that may relate to 

Defendants’ disposition of the Works, but the line item transactions do not identify the purpose of 

the transactions. Id. As an example, Plaintiff provides a bank statement that shows deposits from 

American Express and Worldpay, but no information regarding the date of the transaction, the 

transaction amount, the transaction subject matter, or information about the purchaser. Baden 

Decl., Ex. AF. When Plaintiff performed a keyword search of “Fano Ho” across the bank 

statements, the search identified only a single transaction associated with the Works, a deposit of 

$4,000 for the sale of a Work on October 31, 2013. Mot. at 8 (citing Baden Decl., Ex. AG). 

Plaintiff also states the bank records are incomplete as they include no records from Defendants’ 

account with Citibank, which Defendants previously disclosed. Id. (citing Baden Decl., Ex. AH). 

Plaintiff filed the present motion for sanctions on April 16, 2019. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows courts to sanction a party that fails to obey a 

discovery order by:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated 

facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the 

prevailing party claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing

designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters 

in evidence;

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except 

an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). A district court “has great latitude in imposing sanctions for 

discovery abuse.” Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 367 (9th Cir. 1996); Sloan v. 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 5 of 17
6

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

Oakland Police Dep’t, 2005 WL 8156878, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2005) (“As indicated by the 

clear language of Rule 37, the above-listed orders are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list 

of the orders a judge may issue as sanctions.”). However, any such sanction must be “just” in 

light of the particular circumstances of the case. Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites, 

456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982). When choosing among possible sanctions, the Court should consider a 

sanction designed to: (1) penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction; 

(2) deter parties from engaging in the sanctioned conduct; (3) place the risk of an erroneous 

judgment on the party who wrongfully created the risk; and (4) restore a prejudiced party to the 

same position he or she would have been in absent the wrongdoing. See Nat’l Hockey League v. 

Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 

585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983).

Rule 37 also directs district courts to monetarily sanction a party that fails to obey a 

discovery order; the party shall “pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by 

the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 

2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Willfulness, fault, or bad faith is not 

required for the imposition of monetary sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2).” In re NCAA StudentAthlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 5372477, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012).

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests the Court (1) hold Defendants in contempt of court, (2) impose monetary 

sanctions in the amount of $15,979.50 for attorneys’ fees incurred in seeking the requested 

discovery, (3) deem certain facts established, (4) order Defendants to appear for supplemental 

depositions, (5) order Defendants to produce the documents and things detailed in the Court’s 

Order, (6) preclude Defendants from offsetting revenues with claimed expenses, and (7) enter 

default judgment against Defendants and deem their counterclaims waived. Mot. at 1-2; Baden 

Decl. in Support of Pl.’s Request for Costs (“Baden Fees Decl.”), ECF No. 93-3.

In response, Defendants argue “there are several procedural irregularities, improper 

requests, and factual deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s Motion.” Opp’n at 6. Specifically, Defendants 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 6 of 17
7

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

maintain the motion is untimely in that it was filed more than seven days after the discovery cut 

off, it improperly combines two motions because she seeks to compel further discovery, Plaintiff 

“makes several requests which are without authority and are both and extreme and warranted [sic] 

given the facts of this case,” and Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is punitive because 

“requesting more than $15,000 for what amounts to a cursory motion with some exhibits does not 

explain such a high number.” Id. at 7-16.

A. Timing

Defendants first argue Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because she filed it late in 

violation of the Civil Local Rules. Id. at 7. Defendants cite to Local Rule 37-3, which specifies 

that a motion to compel discovery must be filed no more than seven days after the discovery cut 

off. However, this is not a motion to compel; it is a motion for sanctions. The timing for a party

moving for sanctions is addressed by Local Rule 7-8(c), which provides that a motion “must be 

made as soon as practicable after the filing party learns of the circumstances that it alleges make 

the motion appropriate.” Here, the circumstances show that Plaintiff’s motion is timely because 

she first sought to compel Defendants’ compliance with the discovery request prior to the 

discovery cut-off, the undersigned granted her request, and it was only after Defendants failed to 

comply that Plaintiff filed her motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ argument is without merit.

B. Authority

Defendants next argue the motion should be denied because “[a]s written, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is really a motion to compel in that it makes requests that are specific to a motion to 

compel.” Opp’n at 8. However, the purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to address Defendants’ failure 

to comply with the undersigned’s Order. As noted above, Rule 37(b) authorizes sanctions against 

a party “who fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. . . .” While Local Rule 7-8(a) 

requires that any motion for sanctions must be separately filed, the selection of the particular 

sanction is left to the discretion of the court. See Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 642; David v. 

Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 418-19 (9th Cir. 1977). Thus, a further order requiring Defendants to 

comply with their discovery obligations is an appropriate remedy under Rule 37(b). See True 

Health Chiropractic Inc v. McKesson Corp., 2015 WL 1502953, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015) 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 7 of 17
8

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

(granting plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and ordering that “[a]ny further delay in producing the 

discovery discussed in this Order may expose Defendants to additional monetary or other 

sanctions.”); Sloan, 2005 WL 8156878, at *5 (“The Court concludes that the appropriate remedy 

at this time is to compel Plaintiff to appear for his deposition on a date to be arranged by 

Defendants with the prison officials.”). This argument is also without merit.

C. Plaintiff’s Entitlement to Sanctions

Turning to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to respond to 

the Court’s Order in general, but for purposes of her motion she focuses on RFPs 3, 5, 20 and 21, 

stating they are the “most relevant to the action.” Mot. at 9. 

Request No. 3 seeks all photographs and negatives in Defendants’ possession or within 

their control, regardless of form, that contain images captured by Mr. Ho. Baden Decl., Exs. A & 

B. Plaintiff states Defendants have produced “a few hundred images in digital and have failed to 

produce an inventory of physical prints of the Works in their possession,” despite their 

acknowledgment that they possess “at least 10,000 of Decedent’s photographs stored digitally on a 

hard drive.” Mot. at 9 (citing Pinsukanjana Dep. at 204:11-14). 

Request No. 5 seeks all materials depicting the Works, regardless of media. Baden Decl., 

Exs. A & B. Plaintiff states Defendants have produced no documents responsive to this request, 

except the Samsung licensing agreement, “despite evidence Plaintiff adduced Defendants created 

and sold perpetual calendars featuring the Works and engage as a seller of the Works on their own 

website and the websites of others, including AbeBooks.com.” Mot. at 9-10 (citing Baden Decl., 

Ex. V). 

Request No. 20 is a catch all request for documents concerning Defendants’ licensing, 

franchising, or authorization of other parties to use the Works or Mr. Ho’s name or persona. 

Baden Decl., Exs. A & B. Plaintiff states she “knows Defendants granted a license for the Works 

to Samsung and that agreement may not reflect the only unreported exploitation of Decedent by 

Defendants.” Mot. at 10.

Request No. 21 seeks sales records for and documents concerning disposition of the 

Works. Baden Decl., Exs. A & B. Plaintiff states Defendants have produced no responsive 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 8 of 17
9

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

documents, “including invoices, sales receipts or the like.” Mot. at 10. 

Defendants do not contend they complied with the undersigned’s Order in full; instead, 

they argue “Plaintiff’s Motion lacks the specificity required for a successful motion to compel” 

and that her “lack of specificity fails to demonstrate any actual showing of substantial prejudice if 

she were denied these requests.” Opp’n at 10-11. They also characterize it as a “punitive fishing 

expedition.” Id. at 10. However, in issuing its Order granting Plaintiff’s request to compel 

production, the undersigned already determined the materials she seeks are relevant and 

proportional to the needs of the case. Order at 1. Therefore, any argument Defendants make 

regarding Plaintiffs’ need for the requested discovery is irrelevant. Defendants also argue they 

“have produced hundreds of documents responsive to this request after the discovery cut off and 

continue to produce documents,” Opp’n at 12, yet nowhere do they state they have complied with 

the Order in full or address the items Plaintiff describes in her motion. As such, the undersigned

finds Defendants violated the discovery order and sanctions are appropriate.

D. Default Judgment and Waiver of Counterclaims

Plaintiff seeks to have default judgment entered against Defendants and for the Court to 

find in her favor as to all counterclaims. While such sanctions are beyond the scope of the 

undersigned’s authority as the discovery referral judge, the undersigned recommends against the 

issuance of such sanctions in this case.

While the Court “has great latitude in imposing sanctions for discovery abuse,” Dahl, 84 

F.3d at 367, “[a] terminating sanction, whether default judgment against a defendant or dismissal 

of a plaintiff’s action, is very severe.” Conn. Gen’l Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 

482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). “Only ‘willfulness, bad faith, and fault’ justify terminating 

sanctions.” Id. (quoting Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003)). “An explicit 

finding of willful noncompliance is necessary. It will not be inferred from findings that 

noncompliance was ‘unexcused’ or ‘unjustified.’” Newpark Mall LLC v. Crge Newpark Mall, 

LLC, 2016 WL 742009, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) (citing Schwarzer, et al., Fed. Civ. Proc. 

Before Trial (2015 ed.) § 11:2421)). 

The Ninth Circuit requires that the Court consider five factors in determining whether a 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 9 of 17
10

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

case-dispositive sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is just: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) 

the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins., 482 F.3d at 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(citation and quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that where, as here, a party has 

violated a court order, the first two factors weigh in favor of case-dispositive sanctions and the 

fourth factor weighs against. Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 

2004). Thus, whether terminating sanctions are appropriate “turns on the third and fifth factors.” 

Id.

As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, the Court must 

determine whether Defendants’ actions impaired Plaintiff’s “ability to go to trial or threatened to 

interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Leon, 464 F.3d at 959. Here, Defendants’ failure 

to comply with their discovery obligations has denied Plaintiff access to information which could 

be used to establish her case at trial. The Ninth Circuit has found that prejudice exists when a 

party’s refusal to provide certain documents forces the plaintiff “to rely on incomplete and spotty 

evidence” at trial. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 354 (9th Cir. 

1995). While Defendants note they have already produced “hundreds of documents” responsive to 

Plaintiff’s requests, this does not abrogate their discovery responsibilities to provide full and 

complete responses to the RFPs, as the undersigned previously ordered. See Choudhuri v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 WL 5598685, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) (finding prejudice where 

plaintiff failed to comply with court order, despite plaintiff’s argument that she already provided 

“extensive information”). As Plaintiff’s ability to go to trial would be impaired, the Court finds 

the third factor weighs in favor of terminating sanctions.

Turning to the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, “the district court must 

consider less severe alternatives and discuss them if it elects to dismiss.” U.S. for Use & Ben. of 

Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Const. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 604 (9th Cir. 1988); Conn. Gen. Life Ins, 

482 F.3d at 1096 (The fifth factor asks “whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, whether 

it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of case-dispositive 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 10 of 17
11

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

sanctions.”). While Defendants have failed to adequately comply with the undersigned’s Order, 

they have not been warned by the undersigned or the presiding judge that their failure to cooperate 

with discovery could lead to the entry of default against them or the dismissal of their 

counterclaims. See Choudhuri, 2017 WL 5598685, at *8 (declining to issue terminating sanctions 

where court had not warned about the possibility of case-dispositive sanctions). Further, the Court 

ultimately finds that lesser sanctions are available, as discussed below. Such sanctions will permit 

the case to move forward while mitigating prejudice to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court 

concludes that the fifth factor of the availability of lesser sanctions weighs heavily against the 

imposition of terminating sanctions. Therefore, balancing the five factors, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS the Court DENY Plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions, with a warning 

that Defendants might be subject to case-dispositive sanctions if they fail to comply with the 

undersigned’s recommendation herein.

E. Lesser Sanctions

1. Discovery

Plaintiff first requests the Court order Defendants to produce the missing documents and 

permit supplemental depositions. Given Plaintiff’s position that the information is “necessary,” 

and that the undersigned already compelled production, this request is reasonable. Defendants in 

turn offer several reasons why they need not comply with the Order. First, they argue “Plaintiff 

ignores the fact that she had the option to subpoena these records and failed to do so.” Opp’n at 

11. However, the undersigned ordered Defendants to produce the records, not third parties. 

Further, Plaintiff states she subpoenaed Defendants’ bookkeeper and accountant seeking 

information related to the disposition of the Works, but Defendants opposed the requests and 

moved to quash. Reply at 6. After the undersigned ordered the third parties to comply with the 

subpoena in part, ECF No. 78, Plaintiff states “Defendant instructed the bookkeeper and 

accountant to send all documents first to Defendants’ counsel, who gave themselves the discretion 

to determine what was eventually produced.” Reply at 6. Plaintiff also states that Defendants 

redacted information from the responsive materials without providing a corresponding privilege 

log. 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 11 of 17
12

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

Next, Defendants claim Plaintiff “requested that Defendants obtain their bank statements 

from third parties” and that any delay in their production resulted from “Defendants having to go 

to their financial institutions and request those documents, the timing over which Defendants have 

no control.” Opp’n at 11. While it is true Defendants cannot control how long it takes their banks 

to provide records, the fact remains that Plaintiff requested the records in January 2018 and 

Defendants could have requested them over a year ago. Regardless, as Plaintiff notes, the bank 

statements are of minimal value absent corresponding data or information concerning the source 

of the credits and deposits to Defendants’ accounts. Without more information, Plaintiff has no

way to know which transactions relate to the Works.

Defendants also argue “Plaintiff requested documents that did not even exist,” pointing to 

her request for documents related to Defendants’ sales activity via the AbeBooks.com website 

platform. Id. However, Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendants received at least three 

recent payments from AbeBooks.com. See Baden Decl., Ex. V. Plaintiff is entitled to know 

whether any such sales, or sales on other platforms, are related to Mr. Ho’s works.

Finally, Defendants argue they “have substantially complied with this request” because 

they “have produced hundreds of documents responsive” and “have gone to third parties to obtain 

requested information.” Opp’n at 12. But Defendants fail to affirm that they have complied with 

the Order in full. Thus, further discovery to permit full compliance is appropriate.

Plaintiff also seeks permission to take Defendants’ supplemental depositions, arguing that 

had Defendants complied with the Order and produced the requested documents by the deadline, 

the depositions could have been held before the close of fact discovery. Reply at 5. The Court 

agrees and finds supplemental depositions warranted given Plaintiff’s inability to pursue 

questioning regarding the RFPs at issue. 

In issuing this recommendation, the undersigned notes that fact discovery closed March 

29, 2019 and expert discovery closed April 30, 2019. ECF No. 66. Accordingly, the undersigned

RECOMMENDS the Court extend the discovery deadline to allow for production and the 

supplemental depositions.

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 12 of 17
13

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

2. Evidentiary Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests the Court declare the deposits posted in Defendants’ bank accounts 

solely relate to their sale of Works and that Defendants be foreclosed from relying on the receipts 

they produced to offset revenues from the sale of Works. Such sanctions could be appropriate 

under Rule 37(b)(2). See Choudhuri, 2017 WL 5598685, at *8 (finding evidence preclusion 

sanctions appropriate based on plaintiff's failure to comply with the court’s discovery order where 

plaintiff “failed to make a meaningful production of documents, having apparently failed to 

provide any documents other than those previously provided by Defendant”). However, because 

the document production and supplemental depositions recommended above will likely ameliorate 

Plaintiff’s concerns regarding her ability to prepare for trial, the undersigned RECOMMENDS

the Court DENY Plaintiff’s request for evidentiary sanctions, with a warning that Defendants 

might be subject to such sanctions if they fail to comply with the undersigned’s recommendation 

herein.

3. Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff also requests $15,979.50 in monetary sanctions for her counsel’s fees in seeking 

Defendants’ compliance. Baden Fees Decl. ¶ 12. The undersigned finds that monetary sanctions 

are appropriate in this case as Rule 37 directs the Court to monetarily sanction a party that fails to 

obey a discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (“the court must order the disobedient party, 

the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, 

caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an 

award of expenses unjust.”) (emphasis added). After the undersigned ordered Defendants to 

respond to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Defendants served untimely and deficient responses, and continued to 

take positions that were not substantially justified. This conduct has forced Plaintiff and the 

undersigned to continue to expend significant resources to address Defendants’ failure to meet its 

discovery obligations and provide basic discovery. Monetary sanctions are therefore warranted. 

See Davis v. Elec. Arts Inc., 2018 WL 1609289, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) (awarding 

monetary sanctions for failure to comply with discovery obligations).

District courts determine reasonable attorneys’ fees according to the lodestar analysis, 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 13 of 17
14

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

which multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended on the matter by a reasonable hourly 

rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Jordan v. Multnomah Cty., 815 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1987). 

a. Hourly Rate

A reasonable hourly rate is one that is “in line with those prevailing in the community for

similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. 

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). The party seeking the fee award has the burden of 

submitting satisfactory evidence that its requested rate is reasonable. Id. Affidavits from the 

moving party’s attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing rates in the community, and rate 

determinations from other cases, are satisfactory evidence of a reasonable hourly rate. Welch v. 

Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2007); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps 

Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). Once the moving party has shown that its 

requested rate is in line with those prevailing in the community, the rate is presumptively 

reasonable but may be adjusted on the basis of evidence that undermines its reasonableness. 

Welch, 480 F.3d at 947-48.

Plaintiff submitted supporting evidence in the form of a spreadsheet with itemized billing 

records covering the period March 4, 2019, after the undersigned’s Order, through April 16, 2019, 

the date counsel finalized the present motion. Baden Fees Decl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 93-4. Plaintiff’s 

billing records reflect work performed by three timekeepers: attorneys Allen Baden ($600 per 

hour) and Benjamin Schwartz ($285 per hour), and paralegal Jin H. Kim ($185 per hour). Id. 

Baden is an attorney with over 33 years of experience. Baden Decl. ¶ 8. Cases in this District 

have found reasonable rates ranging from $475-$975, and even higher, for partners in the Bay 

Area. See Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 2438274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 

2015)). Schwartz has less than two years post-law school experience. Id. Cases in this District 

have found rates up to $495 reasonable for associates. See Davis, 2018 WL 1609289, at *7.

Cases in this District have also found rates of $175 and higher reasonable for paralegals. Gurasich 

v. IBM Ret. Plan, 2016 WL 3683044, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016); In re Magsafe Apple Power 

Adapter Litig., 2015 WL 428105, at *12 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2015); Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., 53 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 14 of 17
15

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

F. Supp. 3d 1268, 1278 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Accordingly, the Court finds the requested rates 

reasonable. 

b. Hours Expended

Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for 13.75 hours of Allen Baden’s time (13.75 hours @ $600 

per hour), 24.2 hours of Benjamin Schwartz’s time (24.2 hours @ $285 per hour), and 4.5 hours of 

paralegal Jin H. Kim’s time (4.5 hours @ $185 per hour). Baden Fees Decl., Ex. 1. The 

undersigned has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s billing records, which are organized 

chronologically and reflect fees incurred in connection with: 1) reviewing Defendants’ document 

production; 2) corresponding with Defendants and meet and confer efforts regarding missing 

documents; and 3) preparing the motion for sanctions. The undersigned finds the fees incurred in 

reviewing Defendants’ document production are not recoverable as Plaintiff would have had to 

review the documents regardless of when they were produced.3 The undersigned also excludes a 

generalized entry: “Continue work on discovery.” That totals $3,704.25, leaving $12,275.25 in 

potential fees. The undersigned finds $12,275.25, coupled with the further discovery set forth 

above, are an appropriate sanction here. See Davis, 2018 WL 1609289, at *7 (finding nearly 

$20,000 in fees for work on discovery sanctions motion reasonable and awarding a total of 

$25,000 in addition to evidentiary sanctions). 

According, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court award $12,275.25 in fees.

4. Contempt

Plaintiff includes a request that Defendants be held in contempt. In order to hold a party in 

contempt, the Court must find, “based on clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the party violated 

 

3 There are three entries in Plaintiff’s spreadsheet that could include time billed for document 

review and potentially other tasks. Baden Fees Decl., Ex. 1 No. 1 (“Review Defendants’ 

document production including bank account statements, consignment agreements and subpoena 

documents from accountant and bookkeeper.”); No. 9 (“Work on discovery; receipt and 

consideration of list of consigned inventory from Blue Lotus Gallery; review and consideration of 

details regarding Approaching Shadow transaction involving Sarah Greene.”); No. 14 (“Receipt 

and consideration of Samsung Agreement; correspond with ModernBook counsel demanding 

disgorgement of profits; correspond with client regarding same.”). As Plaintiff’ provide no 

explanation for these entries with multiple tasks and do not otherwise attempt to provide a 

breakdown of the time associated with each, the undersigned includes these in the fees that are not 

recoverable.

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 15 of 17
16

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

a court order, (2) beyond substantial compliance, and (3) not based on a good faith and reasonable 

interpretation of the order.” Perciballi v. Ng, 2012 WL 13070731, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) 

(citing In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 

1993)). “Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or to 

compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous 

behavior, or both.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F. 2d 1376, 1379-80 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Coercive sanctions should be designed to bring about the desired result and to reflect the character 

and magnitude of harm if that result is not achieved. Id. 

Here, as discussed above, Plaintiff has shown that Defendants failed to comply with the 

undersigned’s Order. The undersigned also finds that Defendants’ failure to comply was not 

based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the Order. In addition to the arguments 

addressed above, Defendants maintain that “some of the delays were caused by . . . lead trial 

counsel being hospitalized unexpectedly and another attorney having to step in[.]” Opp’n at 13. 

The undersigned is mindful of the circumstances in Defendants’ counsel’s personal life. However, 

attorneys have a professional obligation to represent their clients competently. See Cal. Rules of 

Prof. Conduct 3-110(a). This includes an obligation “to apply the . . . mental, emotional, and 

physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.” Id. ¶ (B). An attorney 

may be required to seek withdrawal of representation if “[t]he member’s mental or physical 

condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively.” Cal. Rules of 

Prof. Conduct 3-700(B)(3). Further, the local rules of this Court require every attorney to 

“[d]ischarge his or her obligations to his or her client and the Court.” Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(5). 

Moreover, Defendants’ counsel’s failure to serve discovery responses was not an isolated incident, 

as Plaintiff has sought this discovery for over one year and counsel has failed to comply several 

times, leading up to the undersigned’s Order compelling responses. Together, and in light of 

Defendants’ counsel’s ethical obligations, it appears that Defendants’ failure was not substantially 

justified. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court hold Defendants in contempt 

for failing to comply with the February 20, 2019 Order and advise them that further compensatory 

sanctions may be imposed if Defendants continue to fail to comply with their discovery 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 16 of 17
17

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

obligations. See Gen. Signal Corp., 787 F.2d at 1380 (permitting a compensatory contempt award 

for “actual losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.”) (citation and quotations omitted). 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court GRANT IN 

PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as follows:

1) The undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court DENY Plaintiff’s request for 

terminating sanctions, with a warning that Defendants might be subject to casedispositive sanctions if they fail to comply with the undersigned’s recommendation 

herein;

2) The undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court extend the discovery deadline to permit 

Defendants’ full compliance with the February 20, 2019 Discovery Order and

Defendants’ supplemental depositions;

3) The undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court DENY Plaintiff’s request for evidentiary 

sanctions, with a warning that Defendants might be subject to such sanctions if they 

fail to comply with the undersigned’s recommendation herein;

4) The undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court GRANT Plaintiff’s request for 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,275.25; and 

5) The undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court hold Defendants in contempt for failing 

to comply with the February 20, 2019 Order and advise them that further compensatory 

sanctions may be imposed if Defendants continue to fail to comply with their discovery 

obligations.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), a party 

may serve and file any objections within 14 days

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: May 15, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 122 Filed 05/15/19 Page 17 of 17