Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc.

Filing 356

ORDER Granting 354 Motion to Compel In Aid of Execution of Judgment Discovery. Responses due by 1/20/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/6/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

GERALD HESTER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
VISION AIRLINES, INC.,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:09-cv-00117-RLH-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Docket No. 354)

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gerald Hester and Class’ Motion to Compel In Aid of

16

Judgment Discovery, filed on December 5, 2013. Docket No. 354. Any response opposing the motion was

17

due by December 23, 2013. See Local Rule 7-2(b). No such response has been filed to date. Accordingly,

18

the motion may be granted as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d). Additionally, the Court has reviewed

19

the motion and finds that good cause exists to grant it.

20

I.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are aptly stated by United States District Judge Roger L. Hunt, in his Order

granting the Class’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Docket No. 350. As stated by Judge Hunt:
Briefly, this case arises from Vision Airlines’ failure to pay hazard-pay to its subcontracted
pilots who provided air transportation services for the United States government under the
Air Bridge Program contract. Plaintiffs’ Class filed suit in 2009. At trial, a jury returned
a verdict in excess of $5 million dollars for the Class. Vision appealed the judgment, but
the judgment was affirmed. The Class appealed this Court’s dismissal of the punitive
damages claims. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision and remanded to this Court for
a jury trial on the punitive damages claims. During the new discovery period, Class
Counsel became aware that Vision had misrepresented the end date of the contract and
Vision continued to fly without paying hazard-pay. The Court found “the Class is entitled
to damages equal to the proven amount of the hazard pay that Vision collected during the
period of the Air Bridge program from the end of the damages period proven at trial through

1

the time that the Class’ injunction would have covered.” On September 6, 2013, the Court
entered judgment in favor of the Class and against Vision in the amount of $1,811,251.00.

2
3

Docket No. 350, at 2-3.
On October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Class’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Court awarded

4
5

Class Counsel $543,375.30 in attorneys’ fees and $107,238.80 in costs. Id., at 3.

6

On October 16, 2013, pursuant to Rule 69(a)(2),1 the Class served its In Aid of Execution Discovery

7

on Vision. Docket No. 354, at 5. Vision’s responses to this discovery, pursuant to Rules 33 and 34, were

8

due on November 18, 2013; however, Vision failed to respond to the discovery request. Id., at 5-6. Class

9

counsel attempted to resolve the issue with counsel for Vision, but was unsuccessful in its attempts to do

10

so. Id., at 6, 8.

11

II.

ANALYSIS

12

Pursuant to Rule 33, a responding party must serve its answers or any objections within 30 days

13

after being served with written interrogatories. Pursuant to Rule 34, a party upon whom document requests

14

are served must respond in writing within 30 days after being served with the requests. The response must

15

provide access to the information requested, “unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons

16

for the objection shall be stated.” Rule 34(b).

17

The “failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any

18

objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). See also

19

Haddad v. Interstate Management Co., LLC, 2012 WL 398764, *1 (D.Nev., 2012) (same). Here, Vision

20

has failed to object to the Class’ discovery requests within the period of time prescribed by the Rules;

21

therefore, Vision has waived any right to object to the requests.

22

....

23

....

24

....

25

....

26

....

27
28

1

Unless otherwise stated, references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Vision has failed to respond to the Class’ Motion to Compel In Aid of Judgment Discovery.

3

Therefore, Vision has consented to the granting of that motion, and the Court could grant the Class’ motion

4

as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(b). The Court has, however, reviewed the Class’ motion and finds that

5

good cause exists to grant the motion on its merits.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS ORDERED that the Class’ Motion to Compel in Aid of Judgment Discovery (Docket No.

8
9
10

354) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Vision shall respond, without objection, to the Class’ discovery
requests, as served on October 16, 2013, no later than January 20, 2014.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: January 6, 2014.

13
14

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3