Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCart-Pollak, 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180309f21 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is, inter alia , whether the Court should hold On Demand in contempt for failing to produce documents as ordered. See, e.g. , Docket No. 297. "Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order." General Sign Corp. v. Donallco, Inc. , 787 F.2d 1376 , 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). It has been represented to the Court under penalty of perjury that the documents at issue have not been produced because
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court is, inter alia, whether the Court should hold On Demand in contempt for failing to produce documents as ordered. See, e.g., Docket No. 297. "Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order." General Sign Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). It has been represented to the Court under penalty of perjury that the documents at issue have not been produced because a third-party vendor will not release them without payment. Docket No. 300 at 4. At the hearing on this matter, counsel expressed a willingness generally to make payments to comply with the Court's orders. See Docket No. 321 at 10 (transcript for hearing of February 23, 2018). It is not clear whether counsel has now paid the third-party vendor, such that the documents at issue have been produced to Ms. McCart-Pollak.

Accordingly, On Demand shall file a supplement identifying whether the third-party vendor has been paid and, if so, whether the documents have now been produced. That supplement shall be filed by March 22, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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