Probuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG v. Valley Corp. B. et al

Filing 109

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd Granting 104 Motion for Sanctions. Sanctions in the amount of $9,267.00 are awarded in favor of Probuilders and against R. J. Haas. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2012)

1

** E-filed July 17, 2012 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

PROBUILDERS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE CO.,

12
Plaintiff,
13

v.

14

VALLEY CORP.; ET AL.,

15

No. C10-05533 EJD (HRL)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANT R.J. HAAS

Defendants.
____________________________________/

[Re: Docket No. 104]

16
17

Plaintiff Probuilders Specialty Insurance Co. (“Probuilders”) moves for sanctions against

18

defendant R. J. Haas (“Haas”) for his failure to adequately respond to Interrogatories, failure to

19

produce any documents in response to plaintiff’s requests for Production, and failure to appear at his

20

own deposition. Pursuant to the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes,

21

Probuilders and Haas previously filed five Discovery Dispute Joint Reports (“DDJRs”) regarding

22

Haas’s failure to respond to Probuilders’ various discovery requests, including Interrogatories and

23

Requests for Admission and for Production, and Haas’s failure to make himself available for

24

deposition. In this court’s Order of May 14, the undersigned ordered Haas to (1) provide responses

25

to many discovery requests that had gone unanswered; (2) supplement inadequate responses; and (3)

26

appear for his then-scheduled deposition, set to occur in late May 2012. Dkt. No. 103 (“Order re:

27

DDJRs 1-5”). The Order directed Haas to submit his discovery responses (including production of

28

documents) within 14 days of the Order. The court also admonished Haas for his apparent attempt to

1

stall litigation by refusing to participate in the discovery process, and advised Probuilders that it

2

could notice a motion for sanctions. Probuilders so moves, and seeks monetary sanctions in the

3

amount of $9,267.00, the amount it spent in attorney’s fees for the preparation of the five DDJRs,

4

including time spent meeting and conferring with Haas about his failure to respond to discovery

5

requests. Haas has not opposed the motion. This court held hearing on July 17, 2012. Based on the

6

moving papers and argument presented at hearing, the court rules as follows.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) states that when a party fails to appear for his own deposition, serve

8

answers to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection, the court may impose

9

nonmonetary sanctions on the delinquent party or his counsel. Instead of or in addition to

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

nonmonetary sanctions, a court “must require the party failing to act . . . to pay the reasonable

11

expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially

12

justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3)

13

(emphasis added).

14

Here, Probuilders persuasively argues that the costs it expended (in the form of attorney’s

15

fees) trying to get Haas to respond to discovery requests are the “reasonable expenses . . . caused by

16

the failure.” Indeed, had Haas provided discovery responses and appeared for his deposition in the

17

first instance, there would have been no need for the extensive communications and meet and confer

18

sessions between the parties, and Probuilders would not have had to file five separate DDJRs,

19

largely without Haas’s participation. At an average of $165 per hour of attorney work, Probuilders’

20

requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. As Haas did not oppose the motion or appear for the July

21

17 hearing, this court does not know of any evidence that would support a finding that Haas’s

22

failure to respond was “substantially justified,” or that “other circumstances make an award of

23

expenses unjust.” Accordingly, Probuilder’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions in the

24

amount of $9,267.00 are awarded in favor of Probuilders and against R. J. Haas.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

2

1

C10-05533 EJD (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

George Yaron
Aslan Bananzadeh
James Silverstein
Chip Cox
Kim Dincel
Randall Willoughby

3
4

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

5
6

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3