From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tavake v. Huerta

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
2:21-cv-01753-JAM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01753-JAM-CKD PS

06-09-2022

SAMUEL TAVAKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUANITA HUERTA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is defendants' motion to compel initial disclosures and for reimbursement of expenses. (ECF No. 24.) Defendants assert that plaintiffs failed to meet the March 1, 2022 deadline for initial disclosures, and, despite multiple communications between the parties, had not issued initial disclosures as of May 12, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1)(C). Defendants' motion was set for hearing; however, after plaintiff failed to timely respond, the motion was submitted on the Court's own order and the hearing was vacated. (ECF No. 27.)

Defendants subsequently filed a notice that the motion had been partially resolved: On or about May 27, 2022, plaintiffs issued their initial disclosures and served them by mail. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants currently request that the Court grant the part of the motion seeking reimbursement for the fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion. (Id. at 2.)

According to defendants' motion to compel, the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference in two telephone calls in November 2021 and January 2022, and defendants timely issued their initial disclosures on February 14, 2022. (ECF No. 24 at 3.) The Court held an initial status conference on February 23, 2022 and set the initial disclosure deadline as March 1, 2022. (ECF No. 10.) Throughout March and April, defendants' counsel attempted in vain to get plaintiffs to issue their initial disclosures and, in mid-May, filed the instant motion to compel. (ECF No. 24 at 3-4.) Plaintiffs finally provided their initial disclosures in late May, three months after the deadline, under threat of monetary sanctions. (See ECF No. 28 at 2.)

Plaintiffs are reminded that they initiated this action and are expected to cooperate in the litigation and obey Court orders. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures governs motions to compel discovery. Section (a)(5)(A) provides that if “the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion [to compel] is filed[, ] the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees, ” except in the case of three exceptions, none of which apply here.

Defendants state that they have incurred $975.00 in expenses in bringing the motion to compel. (See ECF No. 25, Decl. of A. Seilliere.) Defendants are entitled to reasonable fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion, and the Court finds this amount reasonable.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 24) is partially denied as moot as to compelling initial disclosures and partially granted as to sanctions;

2. Plaintiffs are sanctioned $975.00 for the cost of bringing this motion;

3. Sanctions shall be paid to defendants' counsel within fourteen (14) days of this order, and a notice of payment shall be filed on the docket by defense counsel.


Summaries of

Tavake v. Huerta

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 9, 2022
2:21-cv-01753-JAM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)
Case details for

Tavake v. Huerta

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL TAVAKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUANITA HUERTA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 9, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01753-JAM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2022)