On Demand Direct Response, LLC et al v. McCart-Pollak

Filing 323

ORDER that On Demand shall file a supplement by 3/22/2018 identifying whether the third-party vendor has been paid and, if so, whether the documents have now been produced. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE, LLC, et al., )
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLAK,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-NJK
ORDER

16

Pending before the Court is, inter alia, whether the Court should hold On Demand in contempt

17

for failing to produce documents as ordered. See, e.g., Docket No. 297. “Sanctions for civil contempt

18

may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order.” General Sign Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d

19

1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). It has been represented to the Court under penalty of perjury that the

20

documents at issue have not been produced because a third-party vendor will not release them without

21

payment. Docket No. 300 at 4. At the hearing on this matter, counsel expressed a willingness generally

22

to make payments to comply with the Court’s orders. See Docket No. 321 at 10 (transcript for hearing

23

of February 23, 2018). It is not clear whether counsel has now paid the third-party vendor, such that the

24

documents at issue have been produced to Ms. McCart-Pollak.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

Accordingly, On Demand shall file a supplement identifying whether the third-party vendor has

2

been paid and, if so, whether the documents have now been produced. That supplement shall be filed

3

by March 22, 2018.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: March 8, 2018

6
7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2