*1 On April 23, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs' first motion to compel defendant to serve his initial disclosures and to answer interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 24). After receiving a submission from defendant, which the Court construed as a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 25), on April 29, 2020, the Court granted defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in part and ordered him to provide his Rule 26 initial disclosures to plaintiffs, as well as a “full and complete ... response to each” of plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) in accordance with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 26 at 3 (emphasis in original)). In its Order, among other things, the Court admonished defendant that “[a]lthough not being ordered at this time, defendant is again advised that Local Rule 37-4 states that ‘[t]he failure of any [pro se litigant] to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing [Joint Stipulation] procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.’ ” (Id. at 3 n.2 (emphasis added)).

On June 22, 2020, plaintiffs filed another Motion (alternatively “Mot.”) to compel (ECF No. 30), along with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MPA”) and exhibits, this time seeking to compel defendant to provide further responses to the same Interrogatories and RFPS that were the subject of the previous motion. Plaintiffs contend that the objections and responses provided by defendant are inadequate and fail to comply with this Court's April 29, 2020, Order, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (MPA at 2-9). Additionally, notwithstanding the Court's April 29, 2020, admonishment regarding fully complying with the Local Rules with respect to discovery disputes, plaintiffs assert that defendant refused to engage in the Local Rule 37 Joint Stipulation process that is required prior to bringing a discovery motion. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek appropriate sanctions, “such as striking defendant's Answer.” (Id. at 9).

On June 24, 2020 -- noting that its initial review of plaintiffs' Motion “shows that plaintiffs are correct that defendant has not complied with (a) the Court's April 29, 2020, Order; (b) Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and/or (c) with the Central District Local Rule 37 Joint Stipulation process for discovery disputes” -- the Court ordered defendant to submit his opposition to the Motion no later than July 1, 2020. (ECF No. 31). The Court advised defendant that “failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to granting the motion.” (Id. (emphasis in original) (citing C.D. Local Rule 7-12)).

On June 29, 2020, defendant submitted a letter to the Court in which he requested an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 32). On July 2, 2020, the Court granted defendant's request for an extension of time to file his opposition, to July 15, 2020. (ECF No. 33). In that Order, the Court also reminded defendant of his obligations to do the following: comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules notwithstanding his status as a pro se litigant; comply with the Central District Local Rules (including participating fully in the Joint Stipulation process and the consequences of failure to file an opposition to a motion); communicate with the Court only by appropriate application or motion filed in compliance with the Local Rules; and, fully and completely provide responses to written discovery pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.). The Court further noted that defendant, in his request for an extension of time, also included arguments in support of an opposition to the Motion. (Id.).

*2 In the current Motion, plaintiffs state that in response to the Court's April 29, 2020, Order, they received defendant's inadequate discovery responses and objections on May 26, 2020. (MPA at 3). They further state that on June 5, 2020, they commenced the meet and confer process, which defendant again refused to take part in. (Id.; Chaney Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. 4, 5). They assert that defendant should be compelled to serve further answers, without objections, to plaintiffs' first set of Interrogatories, numbers 1-19, and further responses, without objections, to plaintiffs' first set of RFPs, numbers 1-30. (MPA at 2).

As of the date of this Order, and despite being given additional time, defendant has not submitted any further opposition to the Motion, and . Defendant again also failed to fully comply with the Local Rule 37 Joint Stipulation process for discovery disputes, which is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. C.D. Local Rule 37-4.

In his June 29, 2020, request for extension of time, defendant states that he has tried to comply with discovery “to the best of his ability,” and explains that his objections to the discovery are based on the fact that plaintiffs likely have records from Ebay and PayPal in their possession pursuant to those entities' responses to plaintiffs' third-party subpoenas, and that these “third party records of alleged infringing activity ought to satisfy opposition counsel Pham['s] discovery demands.” (ECF No. 32 at 2). He suggests that plaintiff “is suing the wrong party ... and ought to be suing Ebay and PayPal.” (Id.). As he has done previously in this action, defendant also appears to argue that because he has allegedly valid defenses, there is no need for him to provide responses to plaintiffs' discovery requests. (Id. (citing Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010)). The Court finds that the Second Circuit's decision in Tiffany -- a post-trial review of the District Judge's findings of facts and conclusions of law deciding in favor of eBay on all claims against it after a bench trial -- is not binding on this Court and, in any event, is inapplicable to this action, which was brought against defendant as an eBay seller. It is also inapplicable in the procedural context of plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant's arguments simply do not serve as valid objections to plaintiffs' discovery requests; neither do they provide a valid explanation for his failure to engage in the Joint Stipulation process or to follow the Local Rules and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to responding to plaintiffs' written discovery.

Plaintiffs generally assert that each of defendant's general objections are meritless and/or are not valid objections. Those objections by defendant include the following: “Missing Discovery does not obfuscate the legal question” (defendant further states that he seeks to establish “safe harbor defenses” generally, and “other affirmative defenses including laches, lack of confusion, fair use and others”); “Arbitrary and Capricious,” in which defendant asserts that his internet research “reveals as many as 50-100 entities that are not the Defendant listing for sale hundreds of BMW knock off replica products”; “Discovery is formal and redundant” as “[i]n the context of mediation and despite the rules of procedure afforded both sides, Plaintiff[s'] discovery requests seem overly formal”; and certain requests “are impossible for Defendant due to the nature of electronic records allegedly being held by third parties Ebay and Paypal not yet joined in the lawsuit.” (Mot. Ex. 3 at 3-4[1]). The Court agrees with plaintiffs' arguments that defendant's general objections are meritless and/or not valid objections.

*3 With respect to interrogatory numbers 1-19, defendant provided what appears to be (at best) a hybrid response consisting of objections, along with some substantive responses, although he did not specifically identify the request(s) to which he was responding: the “DOCUMENTS do not exist. The nature of electronic commerce herein alleged precludes documents alleged to be in possession sought by Plaintiff[s]”; “SALES CHANNELS Rocco is a reseller on Ebay.com”; “SOURCES Aliexpress.com”; and “QUANTIT[I]ES AND COSTS Rocco refers to any documents obtained by Pham via third party subpoena.” (Id. at 4). When plaintiffs' Interrogatories (Mot. Ex. 1) are compared to these responses (Mot. Ex. 3), there is little to no correlation.

With respect to RFP numbers 1-30, defendant also provided what appears to be (at best) a hybrid response consisting of of objections, along with some substantive responses, although he did not specifically identify the request(s) to which he was responding: the documents do not exist; physical samples do not exist for production; invoices do not exist; sales and customers “are the property of Ebay, PayPal, and Amazon the responsible third parties not named in the lawsuit. Defendant is unable to produce alleged customer records owing to VERO actions of Pham”; plaintiffs' counsel Pham “may be in possession of alleged customer records and will not share them with Defendant”; and defendant is not affiliated with Emblemzone.com and does not control its domain name. (Id. at 5-6). When plaintiffs' RFPs (Mot. Ex. 2) are compared to these responses (Mot. Ex. 3), there is little to no correlation.

Plaintiffs contend that all of defendant's responses fail to comply with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as they did not separately respond to each and every request; and, in any event, the responses are “virtually unusable.” (Mot. at 7, 8). They also note that with respect to defendant's responses to plaintiffs' RFPs, there is no indication as to whether defendant intends to produce any responsive documents or not, whether he conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the requested documents, and the reason that he is unable to comply, if applicable (i.e., “the document never existed, has been lost or stolen, was inadvertently destroyed, or is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party”). (Id. at 8). The Court agrees with plaintiffs.

For the reasons stated by plaintiffs in the Motion, the Motion is granted. No later than August 11, 2020, defendant shall provide plaintiffs with full and complete individual responses to each of Interrogatory numbers 1-19 and RFP numbers 1-30, without further objection. (See Endnote 1). Unless defendant's responses that are being ordered today fully comply with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and fully comply with this Court's Order, monetary or other sanctions may be imposed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), (b)(2)(A), (C).

Also no later than August 11, 2020, defendant shall also provide plaintiffs' counsel with a declaration, signed by defendant under penalty of perjury, detailing the efforts he has made to locate responsive documents, and stating either that all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control have already been or are being produced, or that he has no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. Defendant's speculation that plaintiffs already have received responsive documents as a result of third-party responses to subpoenas is not a valid reason for him to refuse to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, even if he believes they may be duplicative of documents received by plaintiffs from third parties pursuant to subpoena.

*4 Additionally, despite being given ample guidance with respect to the discovery process and the Court's expectations (as well as significant latitude in light of his pro se status), and despite being repeatedly advised of the penalty for failure to comply with the Local Rules, defendant has twice now completely failed to comply with or cooperate in the Joint Stipulation procedures of Local Rule 37 (not to mention the discovery requirements of Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

The failure of defendant to cooperate with the Local Rule 37 process warrants the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $400, which the Court finds to be the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, necessary to compensate plaintiffs for having to twice bring the issues raised in this Motion to the Court's attention concerning matters that should have been resolved between the parties without the need for Court intervention, and which at a minimum required compliance by defendant with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No later than August 11, 2020, defendant shall pay to plaintiffs the sum of $400 pursuant to Local Rule 37-4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENDNOTE

1. Defendant's separate response to each of plaintiffs' Interrogatories and RFPs individually shall follow the following formats (information in brackets is for defendant's informational purpose only and need not be “quoted”):

Interrogatory No. 1: [Defendant shall quote each Interrogatory in full immediately preceding the statement of any answer thereto. Local Rule 33-2]. IDENTIFY each type of PRODUCT bearing BMW TRADEMARKS that YOU purchased for resale from October 29, 2016 to the date of YOUR response to this interrogatory.

Defendant's Response to Interrogatory No. 1: [Defendant states his full and complete response to Interrogatory number 1 based on his knowledge and under penalty of perjury. Local Rule 33-2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33].

Interrogatory No. 2: IDENTIFY the total quantity of PRODUCTS bearing BMW TRADEMARKS that YOU purchased for resale from October 29, 2016 to the date of YOUR response to this interrogatory.

Defendant's Response to Interrogatory No. 2: [Defendant states his full and complete response to Interrogatory number 2 based on his knowledge and under penalty of perjury].

And so on for each individual Interrogatory through Interrogatory number 19.

RFP No. 1: [Defendant shall quote each RFP in full immediately preceding his statement of any response thereto. Local Rule 34-2]. DOCUMENTS that evidence each type of PRODUCT bearing BMW TRADEMARKS that YOU purchased for resale from October 29, 2016 to the date of YOUR response to this request.

Defendant's Response to RFP No. 1: [Defendant states his full and complete response to RFP number 1, stating (a) whether, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, he has responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control; and, (b) if he has any responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, that he will be producing all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. The documents, if any, shall be produced to plaintiffs at the same time that defendant submits his responses to plaintiffs (i.e., on or before the deadline set herein by the Court). If defendant, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, is unable to locate any responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, he shall so state, under penalty of perjury. Local Rule 34-2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 34].

*5 RFP No. 2: One sample of each type of PRODUCT bearing BMW TRADEMARKS that YOU purchased for resale from October 29, 2016 to the date of YOUR response to this request.

Defendant's Response to RFP No. 2: [Defendant states his full and complete response to RFP number 2, stating (a) whether, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, he has responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control; and, (b) if he has responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, that he will be producing all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. The documents, if any, shall be produced to plaintiffs at the same time that defendant submits his responses to plaintiffs (i.e., on or before the deadline set herein by the Court). If defendant, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, is unable to locate any responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, he shall so state, under penalty of perjury].

And so on for each individual RFP through RFP number 30.

For ease of reference, the Court refers to the ECF-generated page numbers when referring to defendant's response to the subject discovery.