Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Excedis Corporation v. Bollman, 3:16-cv-00514-HDM-WGC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180710c63 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM G. COBB , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the "Discovery Motion" of Edward Bollman and James Kerr which seeks an order of this court compelling Third Party Defendant Thomas Ripley to appear for his deposition in "the San Francisco Bay Area" (ECF No. 104-1 at 12) and to order Ripley to pay "cost sanctions" occasioned by Ripley's repeated failure to appear for his deposition. (ECF No. 106.) No opposition was submitted to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 104) or the Motion fo
More

ORDER

Before the court is the "Discovery Motion" of Edward Bollman and James Kerr which seeks an order of this court compelling Third Party Defendant Thomas Ripley to appear for his deposition in "the San Francisco Bay Area" (ECF No. 104-1 at 12) and to order Ripley to pay "cost sanctions" occasioned by Ripley's repeated failure to appear for his deposition. (ECF No. 106.) No opposition was submitted to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 104) or the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 106).

At the court's telephonic motion hearing of June 15, 2018, the court granted the motion to compel and ordered Ripley to appear for his deposition. (ECF No. 111 at 2.) The court also granted the request for "cost sanctions" and directed counsel to submit a proposed order. (Id.) On July 2, 2018, counsel for Bollman and Kerr submitted a proposed order as directed by the court. (ECF No. 115.)

Order Re: ECF No. 104: Motion to Compel

As outlined above, the court previously granted the motion compelling Ripley to appear for his deposition. (ECF No. 111.) In furtherance of that order, Third Party Defendant Ripley was ordered to contact counsel for Bollman and Kerr, Albert L. Thuesen, III, to identify the exact date he will appear. Should Third Party Defendant Ripley not contact counsel and/or not appear for his deposition, Bollman and Kerr may move the court for further appropriate relief from the court.

Order Re: ECF No. 106: Motion for "Cost Sanctions"

This motion was characterized as one seeking "cost sanctions" (ECF No. 106). Bollman and Kerr sought reimbursement "for the expenses of this motion and to deter further non-compliance . . ." (ECF No. 106-1 at 12). The motion was predicated on Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) which allows the court to award "the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion including attorney's fees." (Id. at 11.)

The declaration of attorney Thuesen represents his hourly billing rate of $750 an hour is "fair and reasonable." (ECF No. 106-2 at 5, subparagraph p.) In the proposed order, Bollman and Kerr seek a "monetary sanction in the amount of $6,307.44." (ECF No. 115 at 3.) However, no breakdown or itemization of the sum of $6,307.44 was provided. While the court has granted Bollman-Kerr's request for "cost sanctions" (ECF No. 106; ECF No. 11 at 2), the court requires documentation of the cost and expenses — and attorney's fees — Bollman and Kerr incurred "for the necessity of [the motion to compel]. . ." (ECF No. 106 at 2; ECF No. 106-1 at 12.) Counsel for Bollman and Kerr shall submit a declaration within ten (10) days of this order itemizing the expenses, costs and fees incurred by reason of the motion to compel.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer