United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 36]
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.
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.
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.
March 1, 2017, Defendant served unverified responses to
Interrogatories, Set One. Id. ¶¶ 1, 10,
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.
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.
4, 2017, Defendant's counsel called Plaintiff's
counsel, but refused to meet and confer regarding discovery.
Id. ¶ 3.
11, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed Motion
for Class Certification. Dkt. 35.
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.
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 ...