Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Golden v. American Pro Energy

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 22, 2017

Lori Golden
v.
American Pro Energy, et al.

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 36]

         On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff Lori Golden (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel seeking (a) supplemental responses without objection to Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1 through 13; (b) responses without objection to Interrogatories, Set Two, Requests for Production, Sets One and Two; and (c) an order that Requests for Admission, Set One be deemed admitted (“Motion to Compel”). ECF Docket No. (“dkt.”) 36. Plaintiff also seeks an award of expenses incurred in connection with her efforts to obtain discovery in the sum of $11, 839.00. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. In addition, the Court finds an award of expenses to Plaintiff is warranted, but additional briefing is required to determine the appropriate amount of such an award. The hearing set for June 29, 2017 is hereby VACATED.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint alleging Defendant American Pro Energy (“Defendant”) “negligently, and/or willfully contact[ed] Plaintiff through telephone calls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq., (“TCPA”), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.” Dkt. 1, Compl. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons within the United States who received a telephone call from Defendant on his or her cellular telephone number through the use of any automatic telephone dialing systems or artificial or pre-recorded voice system, and where Defendant has no record of prior express consent for such individual to make such call, within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Id. at ¶ 32.

         On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant. Dkt. 36-1, Declaration of Kas Gallucci (“Gallucci Decl., ”), ¶ 1, Exs. 1, 2. Plaintiff's counsel granted Defendant an extension until December 5, 2016 to respond without objections to Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Id. ¶ 2. On December 7, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel granted Defendant an additional extension until December 16, 2016 to respond without objections. Id. ¶ 3. On December 22, 2016, Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel an email stating he would provide “a date certain to provide Defendant's discovery responses by December 23rd.” Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff's counsel did not receive any further communication from Defendant's counsel. Hence, on January 10, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant's counsel an email stating she would be filing a motion to compel and seeking sanctions. Id. ¶ 7. On January 11, 2017, Defendant's counsel responded stating he would provide discovery responses by the end of that day. Id. On January 20, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant's counsel a letter requesting to meet and confer. Id. ¶ 9.

         On March 1, 2017, Defendant served unverified responses to Interrogatories, Set One. Id. ¶¶ 1, 10, Ex. 3.

         On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff served on Defendant (a) Interrogatories, Set Two; (b) Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two; and (c) Requests for Admission, Set One. Id. ¶ 1, 11, Exs. 4, 5.

         On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant's counsel a letter requesting to meet and confer regarding Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests and setting forth deficiencies in Defendant's responses to Interrogatories, Set One. Dkt. 36-2, Declaration of Andrew C. Hamilton (“Hamilton Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A.

         On May 4, 2017, Defendant's counsel called Plaintiff's counsel, but refused to meet and confer regarding discovery. Id. ¶ 3.

         On May 11, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. 35.

         On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant's counsel Plaintiff's portion of a joint stipulation regarding the discovery dispute. Hamilton Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B. On that same day, Defendant's counsel informed Plaintiff's counsel Defendant would not cooperate in preparing the joint stipulation. Id. ¶ 5, Ex. C.

         On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel. Dkt. 36. On June 12, 2017, the previously assigned United States Magistrate Judge held a telephonic conference regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Dkt. 39. Defendant's counsel informed the Court “defendant did not oppose the Motion and that it intended to file for bankruptcy protection.” Id. The Court ordered counsel for Defendant to file a notice of non-opposition no later than June 16, 2017. As ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.