Yu et al v. Five Boars, LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 24 AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS signed by Hon. James P. Donohue.(TF)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

KYONG OK YU, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. C17-1249-JPD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
AMENDED MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND
IMPOSING SANCTIONS

FIVE BOARS, LLC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court upon plaintiffs’ April 4, 2018 Amended Motion for

16

Contempt of Court. Dkt. 24. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that defendants have failed to comply

17

with the Court’s Order dated March 20, 2018 directing defendants to amend their responses to

18

plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and produce the documents

19

pursuant to those requests by no later than Friday, March 30, 2018. Dkt. 21. The Court has

20

considered plaintiffs’ amended motion, defendants’ opposition, plaintiffs’ reply, defendants’

21

surreply, the governing law, and the balance of the record, and finds that good cause exists for

22

granting plaintiffs’ amended motion and imposing sanctions against defendants. Dkt. 24.

23

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

24

(1)

Plaintiffs’ amended motion for contempt, Dkt. 24, is GRANTED.1 Defendants’

25
The Court STRIKES plaintiffs’ April 2, 2018 motion, Dkt. 22, as MOOT, in light of
plaintiffs’ filing of the instant amended motion.
1

26

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

assertion that their CPA is in possession of the requested documents, and has obstinately refused

2

to produce them despite having received express authorization from defendants to do so, is an

3

insufficient excuse for defendants’ failure to timely and fully comply with the Court’s previous

4

Order. Defendants did not even attempt to subpoena the documents from their CPA until April

5

4, 2018, the date that plaintiff filed the instant motion for contempt, despite the fact that the

6

Court previously imposed a deadline for production of March 30, 2018. Dkt. 30 at 3.

7

(2)

Due to defendants’ failure to abide by their discovery obligations and this Court’s

8

prior Order, defendants are ORDERED to pay plaintiffs $3,500 by no later than Monday, May

9

7, 2018. In addition, defendants shall amend their responses to plaintiffs’ First Set of

10

Interrogatories and Requests for Production and produce all documents and records requested by

11

plaintiffs by no later than Monday, May 14, 2018.2

12

(3)

If defendants fail to fully comply with this Order, the Court will impose

13

additional sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d)(1)(A), including potentially entering a default

14

judgment against defendants in this matter.

15

(4)

16

DATED this 30th day of April, 2018.

17

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel for both parties.

A

18

JAMES P. DONOHUE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

The Court agrees with defendants’ argument in the surreply that several lines of
plaintiff’s reply brief (Page 3, Line 14 through Page 4, Line 13) should be stricken for raising
new arguments not presented in the amended motion for contempt. As a result, plaintiffs’ “new
argument” about the manner in which defendants produced hotel receipts was not considered by
the Court in resolving the instant motion.
ORDER
PAGE - 2