Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

Filing 177

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 158 Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 5/27/2015. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

COMPASS BANK,
v.

Plaintiff,

MORRIS CERULLO WORLD
EVANGELISM,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 13-CV-0654-BAS (WVG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
[DOC. NO. 158]

17
18

I. INTRODUCTION

19

In an Order issued on December 22, 2014, the Court ordered all discovery to be

20

completed by all parties on or before February 20, 2015. (Doc. No. 86 at 4.) A footnote

21

immediately following that sentence clarified “completed” meant all discovery under Rules

22

30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient period of time

23

in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into

24

account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure, and any motions and the resolution of any discovery disputes. Id. at n.2

26

(emphasis in original). Additionally, that Court Order, the Scheduling Order in this case

27

(Doc. No. 40), and this Court’s Chambers Rules require that all disputes concerning

28

discovery be brought to the Court’s attention no later than thirty days following the date
1

13CV0654

1

upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. Id; Doc. No. 40 at 2;

2

Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV. Counsel are required to meet and confer pursuant to the

3

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26 and this Court’s Civil Local

4

Rule 26.1(a). (Doc. No. 86 at 4, n.2; Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV.)

5

On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for

6

Sanctions. (Doc. No. 158.) In its Motion, Plaintiff alleges that it did not receive numerous

7

discovery items from Defendant. Id. Plaintiff seeks Court intervention to compel those

8

items, as well as sanctions for Defendant’s alleged discovery violations. Id. On April 30,

9

2015, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 162), and on May 7,

10

2015, Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. No. 164).

11

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

12

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to provide complete discovery responses and

13

failed to produce key witnesses for deposition. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant

14

failed to: (1) produce the Mora fax1/ and corresponding fax logs; (2) provide dates of

15

availability to depose two key witnesses; and (3) produce audio recordings that are in its

16

possession. Plaintiff argues that during a Discovery Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for

17

Sanctions on April 2, 2015, Defendant raised complaints after discovery had closed about

18

Plaintiff not providing complete discovery responses, and Defendant raised these complaints

19

without properly meeting and conferring. After the Discovery Hearing, the Court issued an

20

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. No. 166.) Therefore, Plaintiff

21

argues, because the Court entertained Defendant’s discovery complaints, Plaintiff’s instant

22

Motion is also proper.

23

Plaintiff claims that it is prejudiced by Defendant’s failure to provide complete

24

discovery responses, as many of the withheld documents support Plaintiff’s position in this

25

case. It argues that the information sought is critical to disputing Defendant’s counterclaims.

26
27

1/

In its Motion, Plaintiff states that it recently learned that third party witness, Lisa
Mora, sent a facsimile transmission to Defendant officer Roger Artz, which provided notice
28 to Defendant that the subject loan transaction was likely fraudulent. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 3.)
Throughout its Motion, Plaintiff refers to this fax as the “Mora fax.” Id.
2

13CV0654

1

Further, Plaintiff claims that it no longer has the ability to depose key Defense officers

2

concerning the content of the numerous documents that Defendant has wrongly withheld and

3

failed to produce in a timely manner.

4

Finally, Plaintiff asks that this Court sanction Defendant for its bad faith failure to

5

produce documents and information crucial to Plaintiff’s position as it is a clear abuse of the

6

discovery process.

7

A. DEFENDANT FAILED TO DISCLOSE ITS PREVIOUS TRANSACTIONS
WITH CHRISTOPHER HAMMATT2/

8

1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

9
10

Plaintiff alleges that the first of Defendant’s many discovery abuses came to Plaintiff’s

11

attention in July of 2014. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 4.) Plaintiff claims that it later received

12

documents from Defendant that should have been disclosed in response to Plaintiff’s first

13

round of discovery requests. Id. at 5.
2. COURT’S RESPONSE

14
15

This dispute is untimely. This Court’s Chambers Rules require parties to notify the

16

Court of discovery disputes within thirty days of the event giving rise to the dispute. Judge

17

Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV. This alleged discovery abuse came to Plaintiff’s attention in July

18

of 2014, and Plaintiff filed its instant Motion to Compel Discovery on April 16, 2015.

19

Plaintiff waited nine months to bring this dispute to the Court’s attention. The Court will not

20

entertain this dispute.

21

B. DEFENDANT STALLED THE COMPLETE PRODUCTION OF
HAMMATT’S SUBPOENA RESPONSE

22
23
24
25
26

1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT
Plaintiff claims that Defendant stalled the complete production of Hammatt’s
subpoena response to Plaintiff, but also notes that “…[Defense] counsel located and
produced the lost documents after [Plaintiff] threatened to seek judicial intervention.” (Doc.
No. 158-1 at 5-6.)

27
28
2/

Christopher Hammatt is a defaulted Defendant to this litigation.
3

13CV0654

1

Plaintiff claims that in or around November of 2014, Defendant informed Plaintiff that

2

it had received a response to a subpoena it previously issued to Hammatt. (Doc. No. 158-1

3

at 5.) Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce the entire response from Hammatt, but

4

claims that Defendant refused to do so until it had an opportunity to determine if wanted to

5

withhold certain documents. Id. Plaintiff notes that this Court ordered Defendant to produce

6

Hammatt’s response in its entirety, but on January 7, 2015, Defendant responded that

7

previously withheld documents from Hammatt’s response had been lost or misplaced. Id;

8

Doc. No. 158-2 at 3. Plaintiff claims that, “[a]pproximately two weeks later, [Defense]

9

counsel located and produced the lost documents after [Plaintiff] threatened to seek judicial

10

intervention.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff is silent as to when Defendant produced the documents, but

11

does note in a corresponding Declaration that it sent the correspondence demanding

12

production on January 22, 2015. Id; Doc. No. 158-2 at 4.
2. COURT’S RESPONSE

13
14

This issue is moot and untimely. It is moot because Plaintiff states that Defendant

15

eventually produced all of the documents in response to Hammatt’s subpoena. Plaintiff does

16

not indicate what discovery, if any, Defendant has failed to produce. The Court will only

17

rule on ripe discovery disputes.

18

Further, this issue is untimely because Plaintiff claims that, on January 22, 2015, it

19

demanded production of the entire Hammatt response. Plaintiff waited nearly three months

20

from the date of that correspondence to file the instant Motion. The Court will not entertain

21

this dispute.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
4

13CV0654

1

C. LARRY SORENSON3/ RESPONDED TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA FOR
DOCUMENTS

2

1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

3
4

Plaintiff claims that Sorenson produced discovery that included documents which

5

should have been produced by Defendant in response to Plaintiff’s previous discovery

6

requests. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 6-7.) Plaintiff states that, on February 3, 2015, it sent

7

correspondence to Defendant, demanding complete discovery responses and expressing

8

concern that the documents Sorenson produced contradicted the deposition testimony of

9

Defendant’s witnesses. Id. at 7.
2. COURT’S RESPONSE

10
11

Although Plaintiff is silent as to when Defendant’s discovery responses were due, this

12

dispute is untimely. As discussed above, the Court’s Discovery Order filed on December

13

22, 2014, clearly stated that all discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before

14

February 20, 2015, and instructed that “[c]ompleted” meant that all discovery under Rules

15

30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient period of time

16

in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into

17

account the times for...any motions and the resolution of any discovery disputes. (Doc.

18

No. 86 at 4, n.2)(emphasis in original). Further, that specific Court Order, the Scheduling

19

Order in this case, and this Court’s Chambers Rules require that all disputes concerning

20

discovery be brought to the Court’s attention no later than 30 days following the date upon

21

which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. Id; Doc. No. 40 at 2; Judge

22

Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV.

23

Discovery closed on February 20, 2015, and thus, Plaintiff failed to comply with this

24

Court’s Order to have all discovery completed by that date. Further, Plaintiff claims it sent

25

Defendant correspondence on February 3, 2015, demanding complete discovery responses.

26
3/

In its Motion, Plaintiff states that this litigation arises from factual allegations
concerning a purported $3.5 million loan Defendant extended on or about October 1, 2012
to Hammatt and Larry Sorenson of Arrowmark, LLC, allegedly secured by a fraudulent letter
28 of credit worth $5.2 million. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 4.)
27

5

13CV0654

1

Plaintiff waited until April 16, 2015, nearly two and a half months from that date, to bring

2

this issue to the Court’s attention. The Court will not entertain this dispute.

3
4

D. DEFENDANT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THIRD PARTY WITNESSES
1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

5

Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to identify third party witnesses Lisa Mora and

6

Andy Castro. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 7.) Instead, Plaintiff claims that it learned of Mora in

7

January of 2015. Plaintiff contends that it learned of Mora for the first time on January 26,

8

2015, after it received and reviewed emails from October 2012 that had just been provided

9

to Defendant by Sorenson. (Doc. No. 158-2 at 4.) Mora at that time recommended that

10

Plaintiff also speak with Castro. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 7.)

11

Mora was deposed on February 19, 2015, and Castro was deposed on February 20 and

12

26, 2015. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff claims that, subsequent to completing the Mora and Castro

13

depositions, Defense counsel admitted to previously interviewing Mora and Castro as to their

14

knowledge pertaining to the instant litigation. Id. at 8. Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed

15

to disclose these potential witnesses in its Rule 26(a) disclosures, and did not identify Mora

16

or Castro in its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Id; citing Ex. B, Interrogatory

17

Responses, Nos. 3, 4, 5.

18

Plaintiff also argues that during her deposition on February 19, 2015, Mora testified

19

that she sent a fax to Defendant officer Artz, demonstrating that a previous business

20

transaction between Hammatt and Defendant was fraudulent. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 7.)

21

Plaintiff contends that Mora testified that she sent this fax before Defendant funded the loan

22

at issue in this litigation. Id. Plaintiff states that it “thereafter demanded [Defendant]

23

produce the Mora fax and its fax logs for September and October of 2012.” Id. Although

24

Plaintiff does not specify when it demanded that Defendant produce the Mora fax, in a

25

corresponding Declaration by Mr. Kane, Plaintiff’s counsel, he states, “Based upon Mora’s

26

deposition testimony, [Plaintiff] immediately demanded [Defendant] produce the Mora fax

27

and the fax logs for September and October 2012. [Defendant] never responded to

28

[Plaintiff’s] demands. True and correct copies of [Plaintiff’s] March 31, 2015 demand for
6

13CV0654

1

the Mora fax, MCWE’s fax logs, audio recordings in [Defendant’s] possession, and

2

deposition dates for Morris Cerullo and Louis Galuppo is attached to this declaration as

3

Exhibit ‘M.’” (Doc. No. 158-2 at 5.) The only date that Plaintiff specifies with respect to the

4

demand for production of the Mora fax is March 31, 2015.

5

2. COURT DISCUSSION

6

This request for Court intervention is untimely. This Court’s Chambers Rules require

7

parties to notify the Court of discovery disputes within thirty days of the event giving rise

8

to the dispute. Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV. Plaintiff claims that it learned of Mora in

9

January of 2015, deposed her on February 19, 2015, and deposed Castro on February 20 and

10

26, 2015. Discovery closed on February 20, 2015, and Plaintiff deposed these witnesses

11

nearly two months before filing the instant Motion to Compel. Plaintiff was aware at the

12

time of the depositions that Defendant failed to disclose these potential witnesses in its Rule

13

26(a) disclosures and in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff now claims that,

14

“subsequent to completing the Mora and Castro deposition, Defense counsel admitted to

15

previously interviewing Mora and Castro…” However, Plaintiff is silent as to when it

16

learned of Defendant’s interviews with Mora and Castro.

17

Further, Plaintiff claims that it learned of the Mora fax during Mora’s deposition on

18

February 19, 2015, nearly two months before filing the instant Motion. This dispute is

19

untimely and therefore, the Court will not entertain this dispute.

20
21

E. THE COURT HELD A TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

22

During a February 19, 2015 Discovery Conference, which was the day before fact

23

discovery closed, the Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Discovery Status Report by

24

February 26, 2015, if any disputes remained. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 9.) On February 26, 2015,

25

the parties filed a Joint Status Report, and on February 27, 2015, the parties filed an updated

26

Joint Status Report. (Doc. Nos. 103-104.) Plaintiff now claims that references to its request

27

for the Mora fax and fax logs, and Defendant’s failure to provide dates of availability for the

28

depositions of Morris Cerullo and Lou Galuppo, Defense counsel, were included in the
7

13CV0654

1

version of the Joint Status Report that was filed on February 26, 2015, but Plaintiff agreed

2

to Defendant’s demand to remove those references and re-file the updated version on

3

February 27, 2015. Id.
2. COURT’S DISCUSSION

4
5

According to Plaintiff, it agreed to file an amended Joint Status Report to comply with

6

this Court’s Order to file a joint discovery report and to avoid another discovery dispute.

7

This does not appear to be a ripe issue, as Plaintiff does not explain what it is currently

8

seeking. Even if there was a ripe issue, the updated Joint Status Report was filed on

9

February 27, 2015, more than 30 days before Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Further, it

10

was Plaintiff, not Defendant, that actually filed both versions on the docket. Plaintiff agreed

11

to remove its reference to these alleged issues, and cannot complain to the Court nearly two

12

months later that there are ripe and timely discovery issues that it failed to address earlier.

13

This Court’s Chambers Rules require parties to notify the Court of discovery disputes within

14

thirty days of the event giving rise to the dispute. Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV.

15

Therefore, to the extent that there may be a ripe dispute here, and the Court is not convinced

16

that there is, any dispute is untimely. The Court will not entertain this dispute.

17

F. HAMMATT RESPONDED TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA
1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

18
19

On or about March 6, 2015, Plaintiff received a response to its subpoena for

20

documents it previously served on Hammatt. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 9.) Plaintiff claims that

21

Hammatt’s response revealed over 30 pages of email communications between Artz4/ and

22

Hammatt that Defendant had not produced to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff argues that in

23

correspondence dated February 20, 2015, it requested that Defendant preserve all documents

24

and information in light of the parties’ February 19, 2015 telephonic Discovery Conference

25

and Hammatt’s pending subpoena response. Id.

26

//

27

//

28
4/

Roger Artz is a Defendant officer.
8

13CV0654

2. COURT’S DISCUSSION

1
2

This dispute is untimely. This Court’s Chambers Rules require parties to notify the

3

Court of discovery disputes within 30 days of the event giving rise to the dispute. Judge

4

Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV. Plaintiff received Hammatt’s response to the subpoena on March

5

6, 2015. The receipt of subpoenaed documents two weeks after fact discovery had closed

6

is reason enough not to consider Plaintiff’s Motion. In addition, the 30 day deadline to bring

7

the dispute to the Court’s attention expired on April 6, 2015, and Plaintiff filed the instant

8

Motion on April 16, 2015. The Court will not entertain this dispute.
G. DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE DEPOSITION DATES

9

1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

10
11

Plaintiff claims that Defendant agreed to produce Cerullo for deposition after the

12

discovery deadline. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 10.) Now Plaintiff argues that Defendant still has

13

not provided dates for the depositions of Cerullo or Galuppo. Id. at 11.
2. COURT’S DISCUSSION

14
15

The parties agreed to schedule depositions after the discovery deadline, without leave

16

of Court. The parties cannot stipulate to a modification of the discovery schedule without

17

receiving approval from the Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified

18

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”) Deadlines expressly established by a

19

Court Order are not to be lightly regarded, subject to modification at parties’ whims. See

20

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (The Ninth Circuit

21

has emphasized the importance of complying with a district court’s scheduling order, noting

22

that it “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded

23

by counsel without peril.”) Instead, they represent definite signposts that no party, even with

24

the other’s consent and the best of intentions, may circumvent without first obtaining judicial

25

permission. Both parties acted at their own risk. The Court will not entertain this dispute.

26

//

27

//

28
9

13CV0654

H. DEFENDANT FAILED TO PRODUCE AUDIO RECORDINGS OF
PHONE CALLS

1
2

1. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT

3
4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff asserts that it learned during written discovery that Defendant recorded
several phone calls that Lynn Hodge5/ had with Ms. Gurley, an employee of Plaintiff, Jack
Wilkinson6/, and Agent Gee, a Secret Service agent. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 11.) It contends that
Defendant produced the audio recordings’ alleged transcripts, but not the audio recordings
themselves. Id. Plaintiff argues that it was under the mistaken impression that Defendant
was no longer in possession of the audio recordings. Id.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff contends that during the March 5, 2015 deposition of Wilkinson, Defendant
provided Wilkinson with a transcript of a September 26, 2012 conversation he had with
Hodge. (Doc. No. 158-1 at 11; citing Ex. Z; pgs. 77-78; lines 5-20; Declaration of Patrick
J. Kane,

18

of the audio recording and threatened to play it during the deposition. Id. Plaintiff notes that
Defendant did not follow through on its threat. Id.
Plaintiff argues that, on March 31, 2015, it demanded all relevant audio recordings in
Defendant’s possession, among other information withheld by Defendant. (Doc. No. 158-1
at 11.)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff claims that Wilkinson denied that the transcript accurately

represented his phone call with Hodge, so Defendant informed Wilkinson that it had a copy

16
17

40.)

2. COURT DISCUSSION
This dispute is untimely. This Court’s Chambers Rules require parties to notify the
Court of discovery disputes within thirty days of the event giving rise to the dispute. Judge
Gallo’s Chambers Rule IV. Plaintiff does not state that it requested any audio recordings
from Defendant during discovery, and instead only argues that it demanded all relevant audio
recordings in Defendant’s possession on March 31, 2015. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff
learned of the possibility that Defendant had an audio recording of a Wilkinson phone call,

26
27
5/

Lynn Hodge is a Defendant officer.

6/

Jack Wilkinson is a defaulted Defendant to this litigation.

28

10

13CV0654

1

but is silent as to why it waited until March 31, 2015 to request all relevant audio recordings.

2

This delay is especially perplexing considering that the discovery deadline was February 20,

3

2015. The 30 day deadline to bring this dispute to the Court’s attention expired on April 6,

4

2015. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on April 16, 2015.

5

Moreover, Defendant’s threat to play the audio recording for Wilkinson during the

6

deposition may have simply been a tactic to try to elicit information. Further, Plaintiff fails

7

to explain why it was “under the mistaken impression” that Defendant was no longer in

8

possession of the audio recordings. The Court will not entertain this dispute.

9

III. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

10

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed and administered to secure

11

the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

12

Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. A relatively recent addition, “[t]he purpose of . . . adding the words ‘and

13

administered’... [was] to recognize the affirmative duty of the court to exercise the authority

14

conferred by these rules to ensure that civil litigation is resolved not only fairly, but also

15

without undue cost or delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 advisory committee’s note (1993 amend.).

16

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(3), a district court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling

17

order that “must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete

18

discovery, and file motions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3). The scheduling order “controls the

19

course of the action unless the court modifies it[ ]” and Rule “16 is to be taken seriously.”

20

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994).

21

Rule 16 “recognizes the inherent power of the district court to enforce its pretrial

22

orders through sanctions [], and the discretion of the [trial] judge to apply an appropriate

23

level of supervision as dictated by the issues raised by each individual case.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

24

16(f); In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(2)),

25

cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2852, 174 L.Ed.2d 551, 2009 WL 1738654 (2009).

26

“A scheduling conference order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can

27

be cavalierly disregarded without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

28
11

13CV0654

1

604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141

2

(D.Me.1985)).

3

IV. RULING

4

Plaintiff claims that all of the information that it now seeks is critical to this litigation,

5

yet it fails to even attempt to explain why it waited until April 16, 2015, to bring these

6

disputes to the Court’s attention. Not only was the instant Motion to Compel filed well

7

beyond the discovery cutoff, but with respect to most of the discovery items, it was also filed

8

well beyond the Court’s strict 30 day deadline to bring disputes to its attention. Without

9

offering any reason for the untimely filing of its Motion to Compel, Plaintiff simply asserts

10

that the Court should entertain its Motion despite the extreme tardiness, failure to meet and

11

confer, and blatant disregard for the Court’s rules, Orders, and the Federal Rules, because

12

it entertained Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions which was filed after the discovery cutoff

13

and without a proper meet and confer session. However, while the Court did entertain

14

Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, there are several important factors that distinguish the

15

parties’ two Motions.

16

First, Defendant filed its Motion for Sanctions on March 17, 2015, less than 30 days

17

after the parties’ filed their Joint Status Report. Second, on March 3, 2015, this Court issued

18

an Order to Meet and Confer in Good Faith to Resolve All Discovery Disputes. (Doc. No.

19

105.) In its Order, the Court warned the parties that it would “not entertain any lingering

20

discovery disputes.” Id. at 4. Defendant did not ask for the Court’s assistance in resolving

21

any lingering discovery disputes. Instead, Defendant sought only terminating or evidentiary

22

sanctions against Plaintiff for spoliation of evidence related to missing recorded phone calls.

23

(Doc. No. 109.) Defendant did not seek a Court Order compelling Plaintiff to produce

24

discovery after the discovery deadline, as Plaintiff does here.

25

Third, Defendant brought its dispute regarding spoliation of evidence to the Court’s

26

attention prior to the discovery deadline. On February 19, 2015, the Court held a telephonic

27

Discovery Conference during which Defendant discussed the issue of the missing recorded

28

phone calls. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and to file a Joint Status
12

13CV0654

1

Report if issues remained unresolved. The missing recorded phone calls were addressed in

2

the parties’ Joint Status Report. (Doc. No. 104 at 2-3.) In the Joint Status Report, filed on

3

February 27, 2015, the parties informed the Court that “[t]his item is still in dispute.” Id. at

4

3. Less than 30 days after the parties filed the Joint Status Report, Defendant filed its Motion

5

for Sanctions related to the recorded calls. During the Discovery Hearing on Defendant’s

6

Motion for Sanctions, Defense counsel told the Court that he believed the parties had

7

satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

8

Here, Plaintiff failed to bring these discovery issues to the Court’s attention until

9

nearly two months after the discovery deadline. Some of the issues of which Plaintiff now

10

complains are not even ripe disputes. Further, there has been no meet and confer over the

11

discovery issues addressed in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, and Plaintiff concedes this fact

12

by arguing that the Court entertained Defendant’s Motion without a meet and confer, and

13

therefore should also entertain Plaintiff’s Motion. Additionally, the Court warned the parties

14

in no unequivocal terms on March 3, 2015, that it would not entertain any lingering

15

discovery disputes. (Doc. No. 105 at 4.) That is exactly what Plaintiff asks the Court to do

16

here.

17

While the Court has the discretion to grant parties some leeway with respect to

18

compliance with its Rules, to grant the relief that Plaintiff currently seeks would be a

19

wholesale disregard of not only the letter of this Court’s Chambers Rules, prior Court

20

Orders, and the Federal Rules, but also the spirit of them. Plaintiff’s disregard for this

21

Court’s Chambers Rules is so egregious and void of any effort to comply, that this Motion

22

does not merit consideration. For the reasons outlines above, the Court hereby DENIES

23

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Sanctions.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: May 27, 2015

26
27

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

28
13

13CV0654