DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 8/25/2016; that Plaintiffs' motion (Docket Entry 21 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Levander Jones shall respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on or before September 15, 2016. Defendant shall also produce initials disclosures to Plaintiffs on or before September 15, 2016. (Sheets, Jamie)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DISH NET!øORK L.L.C., et
aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v
LE,VANDE,RJONE,S,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1,:1,5CY874
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE TUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C., EchoStar
Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC's (collectively "DISH Network" or "Plaintiffs")
Motion to Compel Defendant's Discovery Responses and Disclosures. Q)ocket Entry
21,.)
Defendant Levandet Jones, pro se, has not filed a response. For the following teasons, the
Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion to compel and order Defendant to tespond to Plaintiffs'
discovery requests.
I. BACKGROUND
DISH Network filed this action against Defendant alleging violation of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act,1.7 U.S.C. S 1201 et Mq., based upon PlaintifPs alleged tafficking
in servet passcodes tltat are designed to circumvent DISH Network's security system and
allow access to its satellite broadcasts of video, audio and data services without paying for such
sefuces.
(J'ee
generalþ
Compl., Docket Entry
1.) DISH Network is a multi-channel
video
provider that provides services to millions of customers through a direct broadcast satellite
system. (Id. n
9.) By payment of a subscdption
1
fee, its customers are authorized to view
entertainment services through DISH Network. Qd.1[1,0.) DISH Netwotk alleges that it has
received information showing that Defendant obtained server passcodes intended to
circumvent DISH Network's security system and ultimately provide services to his customets
(and
fot his own personal use) without purchasing a subscdption from DISH Netwotk.
(Id.
ffi[ 25-28.) A.s a result, DISH Network has suffered imminent tteparable harm, including
damage to its business reputations and
goodwill.
(1d.1129.)
On May 1,7,201,6, DISH Netwotk served its First Set of Inteffogatodes and Fitst Set
of Requests for Ptoduction of documents on Defendant. (I(evin A. Goldberg Decl.
1T'll
3-4,
Docket Entry 21,-2;Exs.1-3, Docket Entry 21.-3 at1,-1,6.) Defendant's response was dueJune
20,201,6. Defendant's initial disclosutes wete due on May 31.,2016. To date, Defendant has
not provided disclosures or a response to DISH Network's discovery requests. (Goldberg
Decl. fl 11.) DISH Network made numerous attempts to obtain discovery tesponses from
Defendant prior to filing the pending motion. (Exs. 5-6, Docket Etttty 21-3 at19-22.) DISH
Network now seeks an otder from the Court compelling Defendant to tespond to discovery
requests without objection, and
Defendant has not filed
II.
a response
to
produce his initial disclosures. Q)ocket Entty
21..)
to DISH Network's motion.
DISCUSSION
As a genetal rule, Fedetal Rule 26þ) provides genetal ptovisions tegarding the scope
of discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonptivileged matter that is televant
to any party's claim or
defense and propottional
to the
needs
of the case,
considering the imponance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant infotmation, the patties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whethet
2
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence
to be discovetable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bX1). Discovery rules are to be accotded btoad and libetal construction.
See
Herbert
u.
I-ønd0,441 U.S. 1,53,177 (1,979); and Hicknan a. Ta/0r,329 U.S. 495, 507 (1'947).
Nevertheless, a court may "issue an otdef
to protect
of
embarassment, oppfession, or undue burden
a"
patty or person ftom annoyance,
expense.
..
."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
District courts generally have broad discretion in managing discovery, including whether to
grzrnt
or deny a motion to compel. l-one Star
43F.3d922,929 (4th Cir.
Stea,ëhoase
dv Saloon, Inc.
1,995); Erdnann u. PreferedRercarcb,Inc. of
u.
Aþha
of Virginia, Inc.,
Ge0rgia,852tr.2d788,792
"fl]h. p^rq
or person resisting discovery, not the p^tty moving to compel
discovery, bears the burden
of persuasion." Carter Haghu u, Research Triangle 1ørl., No.
(4th Cit. 1988).
1,:1,1.CY546,2014
ìfL 4384078, at x2 (I4.D.N.C. Sept. 3,201'4) (citation omitted)'
Defendant Levander Jones is proceeding pro se. "A pro
consideration of his non-lawyer status
[.]"
Critp
u.
Allied Interstate
re
litigant is entitled to some
Collection Agenry, 1.49 F . Sopp.
3d 589, 593 (X{.D.N.C. 2016) (emphasis in onginal). However, "[a]s the United
Supreme Court observed in
MNeil
States
u. United Stateq 508 U.S. 1.06,1,1,3 (1,993),'[the Supreme
Coutt] ha[s] never suggested that ptocedutal
des in otdinary civil litigation
should be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.' Accotdingly, pto
se litigants are
not entitled to a general dispensation from the
imposed deadlines." Dewiît
u.
des of ptocedue ot court-
Hatchins,309 F. Srrpp. 2d743,748-49 (À{.D.N.C . 2004) (intetnal
parallel citations and second set of intetnal quotation marks omitted).
J
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
^
patty may direct intertogatories to
an opposing parry and "[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent
it is not objected to, be
answered separately and fully in writing under oath." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(bX3). Likewise, a
p^fty m^y fequest upon anothef party "to produce and petmit the tequesting party or its
representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample" desþated documents within the responding
patty's possession or conttol. Fed. R. Civ. P.34(a).
compelling disclosute
"[4
party may move for an ordet
ot discovety" if the responding paty fails to make disclosures or to
cooperâte in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
DISH Netrvotk contends that Defendant has failed to satis$r his obligations under the
Federal Rules and the Court's Local Rules.l (Docket Entty 21-1, at
4.) As previously noted,
Defendant has not responded to contest this assertion, nor has he ptovided any excuse for his
failute to produce the discovery requests. Furthermore, the Court does not find any clear
basis to deem
DISH Netwotk's request
as
impropet. Thus, Defendant must respond to DISH
Netwotk's interrogatoties, and produce documents that have been requested. Defendant must
also ptoduce initial disclosures to DISH
the coutt with any justification
Network. "Because fDefendant] has not provided
fot þs] failute to respond, any objections that pefendant]
may have had to the discovery requests are deemed waived." Thompson u. l{auistar,lzr:, No.
5:1.0-CY-127-FL,201,1,wL2198848,^t*2 @.D.N.C.June 6, 201,1); ¡eeFed. R. Civ. P. 33(bX4)
1 Because Defendant "fail[ed] to file a response
[to Plaintiffs' motions] within the time tequired by
[this Cout's Local Rules], the motion will be considered and decided âs. an uncontested motion, and
otdinariþ will be granted without further notice." L.R. 7.3ft); see also Kineric Conæþts,Iruc. u. ConuaTec
12r., No. 1:08CV918,201,0 WL 1.667285, at *6-8 (À{.D,N.C. Apr. 23,201,0) (unpublished) (analyzng
this Court's LocalRules 7.3(f) ,7.2(a), and 7.3ft) and discussing authority supporting proposition that
failute to tespond to argument amounts to concession).
4
(staung that"la)ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good
cause, excuses the failute").
III.
CONCLUSION
Fot the reasons stated herein,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDBRED that Plaintiffs' motion (Docket Entry 21)
GRANTED. Defendant
Levander Jones shall tespond
Interrogatories and First Set
of
Requests
to
is
Plaintiffs' First Set of
for Production of Documents on or
before
September 15, 2016. Defendant shall also produce initials disclosures to Plaintiffs on or
befote September 15, 2016.
L. Webster
United States Magistrate Judge
August 25,2076
Dutham, North Caroltta
5
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?