*1 On December 3, 2020, Defendants XWireless LLC, and Prepaid Wireless Group, LLC, (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to provide further responses to discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 52). Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the motion on December 17, 2020. (Dkt. No. 54). On December 30, 2020, Defendants filed a status report setting forth the discovery disputes that remain outstanding (Dkt. No. 92), and on January 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their response to the status report. (Dkt. No. 94). A telephonic hearing was held on January 7, 2021. The Court, having reviewed the above-referenced filings, considered the arguments presented at the hearing, and for the reasons stated at the hearing, issued the following order:

Motion to Compel

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to discovery propounded by Defendants is GRANTED as follows:

Plaintiff Julio Ortiz must provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 propounded by Defendant X Wireless, and Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 18 propounded by Defendant Prepaid Wireless. The Court sustains Plaintiffs’ objection to Interrogatory No. 17 to the extent that it calls for information to be provided by an expert witness.

Plaintiff Julio Ortiz must produce documents responsive to Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 2, 12, 17, 21, 22, and 23 propounded by Defendants XWireless and Prepaid Wireless.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ortiz must provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 propounded by Defendant XWireless, and Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15 and 16 propounded by Defendant Prepaid Wireless.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ortiz must produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 23, and 24 propounded by Defendants XWireless and Prepaid Wireless.

Plaintiffs’ objections to the above-referenced discovery requests are overruled for the reasons stated at the hearing. The Court finds the requests for Interrogatory responses and production of documents to be relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. Moreover, the protective order entered in this case (Dkt. No. 78), sufficiently addresses Plaintiffs’ concerns about the improper disclosure of confidential or sensitive information. In responding to the above-referenced discovery requests, Plaintiffs must clearly state whether they have any responsive documents in their possession, custody or control and, to the extent that responsive documents have already been produced in discovery, Plaintiffs must identify, by bates number, the document that is responsive to each RFP. Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to interrogatories and RFPs must be produced no later than January 12, 2021.

Defendants’ motion to compel the production of the phone at issue in this case for inspection (RFP No. 1 to Plaintiff Julio Ortiz and RFP No. 26 to Plaintiff Ernestine Ortiz) is GRANTED. The inspection will take place on January 18, 2021 at 11:00 a.m., at Oceanside Boulevard, Suite H, Oceanside, CA 92054. During the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that he has physical custody of the phone and will produce it for inspection on the date and time ordered.

Deposition Schedule

*2 The Court previously ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of depositions that remain outstanding. Dkt Nos. 73, 75. On December 14, 2020, the parties were directed to schedule all depositions prior to the discovery cut-off date of January 18, 2021, and if necessary, to submit a joint stipulation to extend the discovery cut-off date for the purpose of taking designated depositions to District Judge Scarsi for review. See Dkt. No. 73 at 3-4, n.1. During the status conference on December 17, 2020, the parties were reminded of the need to confer for the purpose of scheduling the depositions of Plaintiffs and third-party witnesses “outside of regular business hours or on weekends prior to January 18, 2021,” in the event their request for an extension of the discovery cut-off date is not granted. Dkt. No. 75. Nevertheless, the parties have not been able to agree to the form of a joint stipulation to seek an extension of the discovery cut-off date and have not been able to schedule the depositions of Plaintiffs and third-party witnesses. Accordingly, the Court, after hearing from the parties regarding their respective schedules and availability, orders (1) the deposition of Plaintiff Ernestine Ortiz to proceed on January 18, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., and, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the deposition will take place at a court reporting service that is in close proximity to the location of the phone inspection scheduled at 11:00 a.m. on that date; and (2) the deposition of Plaintiff Julio Ortiz to take place on January 13, 2021 at 6 p.m., to accommodate Plaintiff's work schedule and Plaintiffs’ counsel's schedule.

During the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that he does not represent third-party witnesses Anthony Archuleta and Juanita Perez, and does not have any contact information for these witnesses but could request this information from his clients. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to provide contact information for the third-party witnesses, including their place of employment, to Defendants’ counsel within 24 hours of the date of this Order, and if unable to do so, submit a declaration setting forth his attempts to obtain this information.

The parties have scheduled the depositions of the 30(b)(6) witnesses for Defendants XWireless and Prepaid Wireless and Paul Greene on January 12 and 14, 2021, and the depositions of the 30(b)(6) witness for Defendant Amerimex and Mr. King on January 13, 2021. These depositions will proceed on the dates and times agreed to by the parties and Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to provide the appropriate notices for these depositions if such notices have not already issued.

Sanctions

Defendants seek sanctions for the fees and costs incurred in their attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding their asserted failure to produce complete and timely discovery responses. Defendants point out that Plaintiffs did not produce any responses to discovery requests until after the instant motion to compel was filed. Defendants seek attorney's fees totaling $15,125 and $1,740 in costs incurred for Plaintiffs’ non-appearance at their noticed depositions. Dkt. No. 92 at 9. At the hearing, Defendants conceded that they had been informed, prior to the Plaintiffs’ noticed depositions, that Plaintiffs would not appear.

Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to sanctions including attorney's fees incurred in opposing Defendants’ motion because the motion was not substantially justified and they have attempted in good faith to comply with the discovery requests. Dkt. No. 94 at 11. The Court disagrees. The motion was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ untimely and incomplete responses to discovery. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that his untimely and incomplete discovery responses were caused by difficulties in reaching his clients and their lack of sophistication in understanding the information they were required to provide.

At this stage, discovery remains ongoing, and Plaintiffs appear to be making efforts to participate and comply with their obligations. While Plaintiffs evident failures to meet deadlines and communicate candidly does not go unnoticed, the present circumstances do not seem to merit the issuance of sanctions at this time. Should Plaintiffs persist in this manner, however, the Court will revisit the issue upon the filing of a renewed motion for sanctions. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED in accordance with this order. Plaintiffs shall provide amended and supplemental responses and produce responsive documents no later than January 12, 2021. The phone inspection will take place on January 18, 2021. Plaintiff Julio Ortiz’ deposition will take place on January 13, 2021 at 6:00 p.m., and Plaintiff Ernestine Ortiz’ deposition will take place on January 18, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

*3 Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice at this time. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

The parties may avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to resolve any remaining discovery issues. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

IT IS SO ORDERED.