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

Filing 342

ORDER granting ECF No. #294 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Court urges Ms. McCart-Pollak and On Demand's counsel to confer on an amount of costs to be awarded. If an agreement cannot be made, Ms. McCart-Pollak shall file a "Motion to Calculate Costs" by 5/4/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

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
(Docket No. 294)

16

Pending before the Court is Counter-Claimant Shana Lee McCart-Pollak’s motion to compel and

17

for sanctions against Counter-Defendant On Demand Direct Response III, LLC. Docket No. 294. On

18

Demand failed to file a response in opposition, prompting the Court to order On Demand to show cause

19

why the motion should not be granted as unopposed. Docket No. 315 (citing Local Rule 7-2(d)). At the

20

show cause hearing, On Demand represented that it has simply not complied with its discovery

21

obligations and has no argument as to why the motion to compel should not be granted. Hearing Tr.

22

(Docket No. 321) at 10-11.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Accordingly, the motion to compel and for sanctions is GRANTED.1 On Demand shall provide

2

further discovery responses to the requests identified in the motion within 30 days of the issuance of this

3

order. The Court further orders On Demand to pay Ms. McCart-Pollak’s costs in preparing her motion

4

and for a portion of any costs incurred in attending the hearing.2 For the reasons already explained

5

elsewhere in this case, the Court declines to award Ms. McCart-Pollak attorneys’ fees or to sua sponte

6

impose additional, unidentified sanctions. See Docket No. 289 at 6 & n.7. The Court urges Ms.

7

McCart-Pollak and On Demand’s counsel to confer on an amount of costs to be awarded. To the extent

8

they cannot agree on an amount, Ms. McCart-Pollak shall file a “Motion to Calculate Costs” within 14

9

days of the issuance of this order.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: April 20, 2018

12

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1

Concurrently herewith, the undersigned is recommending case-dispositive sanctions against On
Demand. While such sanctions would ordinarily moot the need for discovery, here the discovery on its face
also relates to Ms. McCart-Pollak’s claims against other parties. See Docket No. 294 at 7 (seeking
information regarding communications with Kevin Harrington); see also Hearing Tr. (Docket No. 321) at
15 (explaining how discovery from On Demand remains important to this case apart from the counterclaims
against On Demand). Accordingly, it does not appear that this discovery is moot.
2

That hearing involved numerous outstanding issues in addition to this motion, so the award of costs
will be apportioned accordingly.
2