Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05114/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05114-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beebell Inc.
Defendant
Ennova Research SRL
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ENNOVA RESEARCH SRL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEEBELL INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05114-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 69

Plaintiff Ennova Research SRL filed the instant case against Defendant Beebell Inc., 

alleging breach of contract. (First Amended Compl., Dkt. No. 45.) Pending before the Court is 

Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and contempt. (Plf.'s Mot. for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 69.) In light of 

Defendant's failure to obtain counsel, the Court previously deemed it appropriate to rule on 

Plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. No. 85.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 

DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2017, the parties jointly submitted a proposed order for entry of 

judgment, which required that Defendant pay Plaintiff a total amount of $87,202.24. (Dkt. No. 

57.) The Court entered judgment on September 14, 2017. (Dkt. No. 59.)

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff moved for a judgment debtor exam based on Defendant's 

failure to satisfy the judgment. (Dkt. No. 63.) On March 1, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's 

motion for a judgment debtor exam as modified. (Dkt. No. 64.) On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff 

conducted the judgment debtor exam; Defendant, however, failed to produce all of the paperwork 

required, and the judgment debtor exam was continued. (Dkt. No. 65; June 20 Masserat Decl. ¶ 8, 

Dkt. No. 69-1.) The parties stipulated to continuing the judgment debtor exam to June 7, 2018. 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 106 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 6
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

(Dkt. No. 67.)

On June 7, 2018, the parties held the continued judgment debtor exam. (Dkt. No. 68.) 

Defendant, however, again failed to bring any of the documents he had been ordered to produce, 

including bank statements, financial statements, or tax returns. (June 20 Masserat Decl. ¶ 11.) 

The Court observed that Defendant's actions were a waste of the time of both the Court and 

Plaintiff's counsel, as well as a disregard of the Court's orders. The Court also noted its skepticism 

that Defendant intended to comply with the Court's orders.

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for sanctions and contempt, seeking 

$11,412.50 in monetary sanctions against both Defendant and Defendant's counsel. (Plf.'s Mot. 

for Sanctions at 4.) On July 5, 2018, Defendant filed an opposition, raising only procedural 

objections to the motion. (Def.'s Opp'n at 2-3, Dkt. No. 71.) Defendant also asked for a 

continuance on the hearing, in light of the Defendant's counsel's intent to withdraw. (Id. at 3-4.) 

On August 3, 2018, Defendant's counsel filed his motion to withdraw as attorney of record. (Dkt. 

No. 74.) That same day, Plaintiff filed its late reply. (Plf.'s Reply, Dkt. No. 75.)

On August 7, 2018, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. 

(Dkt. No. 76.) The Court also struck Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for sanctions as late. 

(Id. at 1-2 n.1.) On August 29, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's counsel's motion to withdraw, 

and gave Defendant 45 days to find new counsel. (Dkt. No. 78 at 2-3.) The Court also noted that 

it was not inclined to award any sanctions against Defendant's counsel. (Id. at 4 n.1.) On 

September 5, 2018, Plaintiff withdrew the motion for sanctions as against Defendant's counsel. 

(Dkt. No. 80.)

On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a status report, stating that Defendant had not secured 

substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 81 at 2.) No notice of appearance on Defendant's behalf was filed, 

and on October 30, 2018, the Court determined that it was appropriate to rule on Plaintiff's motion 

for sanctions. (Dkt. No. 85 at 1.) The Court found, however, that Plaintiff's counsel failed to 

substantiate his request for attorney's fees, and ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing 

regarding the amount. (Id.) The Court warned that failure to provide sufficient documentation 

could result in the Court reducing the amount requested. (Id. at 2.) On November 1, 2018, 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 106 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff's counsel filed a supplemental brief and declaration, which now sought $10,798.18 in 

sanctions. (Plf.'s Supp. Brief, Dkt. No. 86; November 1 Masserat Decl., Dkt. No. 86-1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery 

from a judgment debtor in aid of the judgment or execution. "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 

provides for sanctions available for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery." 

Gordon v. Cty. of Alameda, No. CV-06-2997-SBA, 2007 WL 1750207, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 

2007). Specifically, Rule 37(b)(2)(A) states that if a party "fails to obey an order to provide or 

permit discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders," including 

"treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical 

or mental examination." Rule 37(b)(2)(B) also states that "[i]nstead of or in addition to the orders 

above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay 

the reasonable expenses, including the attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was 

substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust."

Additionally, "[c]ourts are invested with inherent powers that are governed not by rule or 

statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve 

the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng'g & 

Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation omitted). Those inherent 

powers include "the broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the 

conduct of a fair and orderly trial." Id. (internal quotation and modification omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate in this case. Defendant has repeatedly failed 

to comply with the Court's discovery order regarding the documents Defendant is to provide at the 

judgment debtor exam, causing additional costs to Plaintiff and additional burden to the Court. 

While Defendant is currently unrepresented, other courts have issued monetary sanctions for 

failure to comply with discovery orders. See Blasi v. United Debt Servs., LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv83, 2017 WL 2255525, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2017) (awarding attorney's fees and costs against 

an unrepresented corporation as a sanction for failure to provide discovery). 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 106 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 6
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

Defendant raises a number of procedural objections, but does not challenge the motion on 

its merits. None of Defendant's procedural objections, however, warrant denying Plaintiff's 

motion, particularly when none are substantive or prejudicial to Defendant's rights. For example, 

Defendant complains that Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) because 

the first paragraph does not include the date and time of the hearing, and the second paragraph 

does not include a concise statement of what relief Plaintiff seeks. (Def.'s Opp'n at 2.) There can 

be no dispute, however, that the motion clearly states what relief is sought, and that a hearing date 

and time is stated on the first page; Defendant is not affected by these failures. Likewise, the 

failure to provide a proposed order has no effect on Defendant's ability to defend against the 

motion. Finally, as to Civil Local Rule 7-8(d), which states that motions for sanctions may not be 

served and filed more than 14 days after entry of judgment by the district court unless otherwise 

ordered by the court, the Court finds this case to be unique in that the discovery orders and failure 

to comply occurred after the entry of judgment, as they concern the enforcement of the judgment. 

In this specific circumstance, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's failure to comply with Civil 

Local Rule 7-8(d) excusable.1

The Court therefore concludes that sanctions are warranted. Per Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37, the Court holds Defendant in contempt for failing to obey its discovery orders 

regarding the judgment debtor exam. The Court also awards reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 

Having reviewed the declaration of Plaintiff's counsel, however, the Court does not find Plaintiff 

is entitled to $10,798.18, as requested.

First, Plaintiff seeks $9,647.50 in attorney's fees, or 22.70 hours billed at an hourly rate of 

$425. (November 1 Masserat Decl. ¶¶ 5, 11.) The Court finds that the $425 hourly rate is 

reasonable, given counsel's fifteen years of experience in civil litigation. The Court, however, 

finds that counsel's block-billing of fifteen hours for travel time and attendance at the debtor exam 

to be improper. Courts in this district have criticized block-billing when those entries were not 

sufficiently detailed to determine the reasonableness of the time spent on each task. See Banas v. 

 

1

If Plaintiff had requested permission to file the motion, the Court would have granted it.

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 106 Filed 01/22/19 Page 4 of 6
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

Volcano Corp., 47 F. Supp. 3d 957, 966 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Here, for example, counsel's flight 

arrived at 9:45 a.m., and the judgment debtor exam occurred at 1:30 p.m. The judgment debtor 

exam and court hearing ended at around 3:00 p.m., and counsel's flight departed at 6:55 p.m. 

There is no information in the block-billing of fifteen hours to suggest that the time between 

counsel's flight arrival and the start of the judgment debtor exam was spent on this case. 

Therefore, the Court will reduce 2.75 hours from this period. Similarly, there is no information 

that the time between the end of the judgment debtor exam/court hearing and counsel's flight 

departure was spent on the case. The Court will reduce 1.25 hours from this period. Thus, the 

Court will award eleven hours for this period, rather than the fifteen hours requested.

Additionally, the Court will permit recovery of the 4.5 hours spent drafting the motion for 

sanctions. The Court will not allow any recovery for review of Defendant's opposition or drafting 

of the reply brief because the reply brief was stricken after Plaintiff's counsel failed to timely file 

the reply. In total, the Court will award 15.5 hours at a $425 hourly rate, or $6,587.50 in attorney's 

fees.

Second, as to costs, the Court finds the $234.40 for airfare and $717.28 for the court 

reporter to be reasonable, as both costs are supported by receipts. (See November 1 Masserat 

Decl., Exh. 1.) Plaintiff's counsel fails to provide any receipts for his transportation or meals. The 

Court warned Plaintiff's counsel that failure to provide sufficient documentation could result in the 

Court reducing the amount sought; here, Plaintiff has provided no documentation for 

transportation or meals. Therefore, the Court will only allow costs of $951.68.

Accordingly, the Court will sanction Defendant in the amount of $7,539.18.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 106 Filed 01/22/19 Page 5 of 6
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 

Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. The Court holds Defendant in contempt for failing to obey the 

Court's discovery orders as to the judgment debtor exam, and orders Defendant to pay Plaintiff 

$7539.18 in reasonable expenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 106 Filed 01/22/19 Page 6 of 6