Filed: Feb. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs Merchant Ivory Productions ("Merchant") and James Ivory sued defendant John Gilbert Donaldson, a former director of Merchant, for a variety of fraud-related claims related to his sale of a Paris, France apartment on Merchant's behalf. Doc. 1. After Donaldson answered, plaintiffs served discovery but received no response. They thus move to compel. 1 Doc. 25. Upon review, the Court finds the motion supported and the discovery ( e.g., interr
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs Merchant Ivory Productions ("Merchant") and James Ivory sued defendant John Gilbert Donaldson, a former director of Merchant, for a variety of fraud-related claims related to his sale of a Paris, France apartment on Merchant's behalf. Doc. 1. After Donaldson answered, plaintiffs served discovery but received no response. They thus move to compel. 1 Doc. 25. Upon review, the Court finds the motion supported and the discovery ( e.g., interro..
More
ORDER
G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs Merchant Ivory Productions ("Merchant") and James Ivory sued defendant John Gilbert Donaldson, a former director of Merchant, for a variety of fraud-related claims related to his sale of a Paris, France apartment on Merchant's behalf. Doc. 1. After Donaldson answered, plaintiffs served discovery but received no response. They thus move to compel.1 Doc. 25. Upon review, the Court finds the motion supported and the discovery (e.g., interrogatories and requests for production seeking banking information and financial records of the transactions underlying plaintiffs' claims, doc. 25 at 8-34) relevant and appropriate.
Donaldson, however, also failed to respond to the motion. See doc. 25 ("Responses due by 2/8/2016"). Because it is supported and unopposed per Local Rule 7.5 (no response means no opposition), defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED. Doc. 25. Donaldson must respond to plaintiffs' written discovery requests, and provide a date for his deposition, within twenty-one days after the date this Order is served.
Defendant's intransigence in responding to legitimate discovery requests has also caused the discovery period to expire. See doc. 24 at 1 (discover due by January 28, 2016). Hence, plaintiffs request a sixty day extension beyond the twenty-one days the Court has given Donaldson to respond to their discovery requests. Doc. 25 at 35. That request is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs do not seek Rule 37 sanctions for Donaldson's failure to respond (they do expressly ask for fees and expenses for "future discovery transgressions, doc. 25 at 36). Payment of expenses (including attorney's fees), however, typically is mandatory when, "after giving an opportunity to be heard," courts grant motions to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Only if (1) "the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the . . . discovery without court action;" (2) the failure to respond was justified; or (3) "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust, may a court decline to award expenses to a prevailing party. Id.
None of those exceptions apply here and Donaldson had his chance to be heard. Consequently, the Court ORDERS that he pay plaintiffs' "reasonable expenses incurred in making" their motion to compel, "including attorney's fees." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Plaintiffs must submit an itemized list of expenses and fees within fourteen days of the date this Order is served so the Court can evaluate their reasonableness and issue an expense award.2
To summarize: plaintiffs' motions to compel (doc. 25), to exceed page limits, and to extend discovery are GRANTED. Donaldson has 21 days from the date this Order is served to respond to all of plaintiffs' discovery requests and provide a date for his deposition. He also must pay plaintiffs' reasonable motion to compel expenses. Plaintiffs must submit an itemized list of expenses, including attorney's fees, within 14 days from the date this Order is served. Donaldson will then have 10 days thereafter to contest plaintiffs' itemization.
SO ORDERED.