United States District Court, E.D. California
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut corporation, Plaintiff,
SIDNEY B. DUNMORE, an individual; SID DUNMORE TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2003, a California trust; SIDNEY B. DUNMORE, Trustee for Sid Dunmore Trust Dated February 28, 2003; DHI DEVELOPMENT, a California corporation, Defendants.
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
December 4, 2019, plaintiff/judgment creditor filed a motion
for an order of contempt and noticed the motion for hearing
before the undersigned on December 27, 2019. (ECF No. 457.)
On December 13, 2019, defense counsel filed a response. (ECF
No. 458.) Plaintiff filed a reply on December 20, 2019. (ECF
No. 459.) Having reviewed the parties' filings, the
undersigned finds that this matter may be submitted on the
record pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and will vacate the
December 27, 2019 hearing. Moreover, plaintiff's motion
will be granted as explained below.
September 10, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF
No. 444.) Defendant failed to file a response to the motion
to compel in violation of Local Rule 251(e). Accordingly, on
September 24, 2019, the undersigned issued an order ordering
defendant to show cause for failing to comply with the Local
Rules and providing defendant a final opportunity to file a
response to plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 445.)
October 14, 2019, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw
and a response to the September 24, 2019 order. (ECF No. 447.) On
October 24, 2019, the undersigned issued an order granting
plaintiff's motion to compel and ordering defendant to
provide discovery responses within twenty-eight days. (ECF
December 4, 2019, plaintiff filed the pending motion for
contempt. (ECF No. 457.) Defense counsel filed a response on
December 13, 2019. (ECF No. 458.) Plaintiff field a reply on
December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 459.)
motion seeks an order ordering: (1) the judgment debtors held
in contempt; (2) defendant Sidney B. Dunmore to surrender his
passport; (3) Sidney B. Dunmore be remanded into the custody
of the U.S. Marshals Service and be imprisoned until
discovery responses are provided. (ECF No. 457 at 3.)
Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. (ECF No. 457-1 at
7.) However, although styled as a motion for an order of
contempt for failure to comply with the undersigned's
October 24, 2019 order granting plaintiff's motion to
compel, plaintiff's motion attempts to interject separate
matters into this dispute.
regard, plaintiff argues that it “previously filed a
Motion for an Order” requiring defendant to surrender
his passport. (ECF No. 457-1 at 5.) Plaintiff “hereby
requests that the Court issues its ruling on Travelers'
request that Sidney B. Dunmore be required to surrender his
passport until he fully complies with the Repatriation
Order.” (Id.) However, as plaintiff ////
acknowledges, that motion has been submitted before the
assigned District Judge. (Id.; ECF No. 411.) The
undersigned cannot rule on a motion pending before the
assigned District Judge.
motion also requests that the defendant “be remanded
into the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and imprisoned
until such time as Judgment Debtors repatriate all funds held
overseas and pay those funds to Travelers[.]” (ECF No.
457-1 at 6.) Again, the issue of repatriated funds is not
before the undersigned.
before the undersigned is defendant's failure to comply
with undersigned's October 24, 2019 order. And as to
that, the parties seem to agree. Defendant Dunmore has not
complied with the October 24, 2019 order and “has not
responded to [defense] counsel's requests.” (ECF
No. 458 at 2.) Defense counsel, however, “has produced
all tax and financial documents” in defense
counsel's possession. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff
acknowledges that production. (ECF No. 459 at 2.) Thus, it
appears to the undersigned that while defense counsel has
attempted to comply with the undersigned's order
defendant has not.
the undersigned will sanction defendant for defendant's
failure to comply with the undersigned's order.
Plaintiff's motion asserts that plaintiff “has
incurred reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees .
. . in excess of $5, 000.” (ECF No. 457-1 at 3.)
Plaintiff's reply, however, states that plaintiff
“has incurred $4, 150.00 in attorney's fees and
costs directly related to seeking this
discovery.” (ECF No. 459 at 2.) The undersigned will,
therefore, award plaintiff $4, 150 in sanctions. The sanction
is against defendant and not defense counsel.
IT IS ...