Blindlight, LLC v. Timothy Cubbison et al

Filing 102

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. On December 1, 2017, plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time ("Application" or "App.") (ECF No. 101 ) for a hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Compel pro duction of documents and further interrogatory responses from defendants ("Motion" or "Mot.") (ECF No. 102 ). Based on plaintiff's representation that defendants have failed to produce any documents in this action, especially in light of the issuance of a Protective Order nearly two months ago and the rapidly-approaching discovery cut-off date, NO LATER THAN 12:00 noon on DECEMBER 5, 2017, defendants are ordered to show cause: SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (ch)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

BLINDLIGHT, LLC,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY CUBBISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 17-3497-JAK (PLAx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

18

On December 1, 2017, plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time (“Application”

19

or “App.”) (ECF No. 101) for a hearing on plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production of documents

20

and further interrogatory responses from defendants (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 102).

21

Specifically, plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents mentioned in defendants’ Rule 26

22

disclosures that defendants agreed to produce in their responses to plaintiff’s Requests for

23

Production numbers 3-7, 12-17, 23-31, 33-40, 42-54, 56-58, 61-65, 66-78, as well as further

24

responses to Interrogatory numbers 4-8. (Mot. at 5-6). Plaintiff submits that in June and July

25

2017 defendants agreed to produce documents responsive to plaintiff’s Requests for Documents

26

(Sets One and Two) and Interrogatories (Set One) -- which they indicated in their Rule 26

27

disclosures were in their possession (Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶ 2 Ex. 1) -- once a protective order was in

28

place. (Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶¶ 3-7 Exs. 4-6). Although a Protective Order was issued in this matter

1

on October 11, 2017, defendants have “failed to provide any responsive documents or responses

2

while refusing to meet and confer and merely alleging time and again to Plaintiff’s counsel that

3

they would produce them ‘soon’ and failing to do so.” (App. at 4; Mot. at 4-5; Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶¶

4

8-15).

5

defendants’ response to plaintiff’s counsel’s November 1, 2017, email would “be ready in another

6

day or two,” but no further response from defendants has been forthcoming. (Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶¶

7

16, 17). Neither have defendants “produced a single document pursuant to Plaintiff’s discovery

8

requests and Defendants own admitted Rule 26 disclosures.” (App. at 7; Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶ 8).

9

Plaintiff seeks to have the Motion heard on shortened time because of defendants’ “blatant

10

disregard of proper discovery protocol” (App. Cislo Decl. ¶ 11) and if plaintiff were to file a properly

11

noticed motion to compel, the earliest date for the hearing would be January 8, 2018, the

12

discovery cut-off date.1 (App. at 2). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of

13

approximately $9,500. (Mot. at 2, 8-9; Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶ 5).

On November 6, 2017, defendants’ counsel represented to plaintiff’s counsel that

14

Plaintiff’s counsel states that on December 1, 2017, he notified defendants’ counsel of

15

plaintiff’s intent to submit an ex parte Application for an order to hear the Motion on shortened

16

time, and defendants’ counsel indicated that “he will be producing the documents and responses

17

shortly but will wish to oppose this ex parte application.” (Mot. Cislo Decl. ¶ 19).

18

Based on plaintiff’s representation that defendants have failed to produce any documents

19

in this action, especially in light of the issuance of a Protective Order nearly two months ago and

20

the rapidly-approaching discovery cut-off date, no later than 12:00 noon on December 5, 2017,

21

defendants are ordered to show cause:

22

(1)

23

why plaintiff’s Application to have the Motion heard on shortened time should not be
granted;

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that pursuant to the District Judge’s Order Setting Rule 16(b)/26(f)
Scheduling Conference, the discovery cut-off date “means the final day for completion of
non-expert discovery, including resolution of all discovery motions.”
2

1

(2)

why, despite their promises to do so, no documents have been produced responsive

2

to Requests for Production numbers 3-7, 12-17, 23-31, 33-40, 42-54, 56-58, 61-65,

3

66-78, and why supplemental responses to Interrogatory numbers 4-8 have not

4

been provided; and

5

(3)

6

It is so ordered.

why plaintiff’s request for sanctions should not be granted.

7
8
9

DATED: December 4, 2017
PAUL L. ABRAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3