Lou v. MA Laboratories, Inc et al

Filing 472

ORDER by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins denying 222 Motion for Sanctions (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13 MICHELLE LOU, and others,

Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

15

Plaintiffs,
v.

16 MA LABORATORIES, INC., and others,
17

Re: Dkt. No. 222

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs moved to compel defendants to produce e-discovery in a usable format, or
in the alternative requested monetary sanctions. Dkt. No. 222. The Court ordered the
production to be in an easily usable Excel format, but took the sanctions motion under
submission pending the defendants’ completion of the production at issue. Dkt. No. 224.
“District Courts have broad discretion in imposing discovery sanctions. Ritchie v.
United States, 451 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2006). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2) states that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery” a court
“may issue further just orders,” including awarding monetary sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2).

28
Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1

The Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for lack of good cause and a failure

2 to meet and confer prior to moving for sanctions. The parties were eventually able to agree
3 on the proper format of documents and defendants completed the production as required.
4 Given that compliance and the overall behavior of both parties during the lengthy discovery
5 process, sanctions are not warranted. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore denied.
6

Any party may object to this order within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Date: March 25, 2014

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

2