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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?