*1 This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37 against Defendants The Estates LLC, The Estates (UT), LLC, The Estates Real Estate Group, LLC, Timbra of North Carolina, LLC, Versa Properties, LLC, Red Tree Holdings, LLC, Maldives, LLC, Tonya Newell, and Carolyn Southern (“Defendants”). (Docket Entry 129.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendants on October 18, 2019 alleging a bid-rigging conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, unfair and deceptive trade practices pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, and unjust enrichment under North Carolina common law. (See generally Compl., Docket Entry 1.) An initial pretrial conference hearing was held on May 20, 2020. (Minute Entry dated 5/20/2020.) At that time, the Court stayed discovery pending a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Text Order dated 5/21/2020.) The Court subsequently denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice to renewal after discovery. (Docket Entry 70.) In that same Order, the Court (1) lifted the stay of discovery, (2) allowed Plaintiffs to immediately serve written discovery on Defendants directed at class certification issues, and (3) ordered the parties to submit a revised Joint Rule 26(f) report covering discovery on class certification issues and on the merits. (Id. at 6.) The parties thereafter submitted their Joint Rule 26(f) report. (Docket Entry 72.) On July 1, 2020, the Court approved the Joint Report and instructed the parties “to proceed immediately with discovery on class certification issues in tandem with discovery on the merits.” (Docket Entry 73 at 2.)

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff's filed their first motion to compel discovery. (Docket Entry 76.) On November 18, 2020, after holding a hearing on the matter, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and ordered Defendants to produce the documents described in the Order within 30 days. (Docket Entry 97.) Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel discovery responses on November 6, 2020. (Docket Entry 92.) The Court granted this motion on December 29, 2020 and ordered Defendants to make productions within 30 days of that order. (Docket Entry 109.)

Plaintiffs filed the foregoing motion for sanctions on February 4, 2021. (Docket Entry 129.) In the brief accompanying their motion, Plaintiffs state that they received “nothing” by the deadline imposed by the Court's December 29, 2020 Order, nor had counsel for Defendants requested an extension of time to make productions. (Docket Entry 130 at 5.) Counsel for Plaintiffs sent a letter to counsel for Defendants on February 1, 2020 inquiring about the status of Defendants’ productions and giving them until February 2, 2020 to comply with the Court's Order. (Id.; see also Docket Entry 130-1.) Counsel for Defendants responded by asking counsel for Plaintiffs to consent to an extension of time. (Docket Entry 130 at 5-6; see also Docket Entry 130-2.) Counsel for Plaintiffs indicated that counsel for Defendants could file a motion with the Court to extend the production deadline and that Plaintiffs would refrain from filing their motion for sanctions if counsel for Defendants sought an extension by the end of the day on February 3, 2020. (Docket Entry 130 at 6; see also Docket Entry 130-3.) Defendants did not file a motion seeking an extension of time. Plaintiffs filed their motion seeking sanctions the following day. (Docket Entry 129.) Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Docket Entry 142). Plaintiffs filed a reply on March 4, 2021, indicating that as of that date, Defendants still had not complied fully with the Court's December 29, 2020 Order. (Docket Entry 147.)

II. DISCUSSION

*2 Plaintiffs move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and seek an award of attorney fees for the expenses they have incurred in preparing their motions to compel and their motion for sanctions. (See Docket Entry 129.) Specifically, Plaintiffs ask the Court to “either direct the facts that would have been produced in the discovery as established or hold Defendants in contempt, possibly with a daily fine until they comply with the discovery order.” (Docket Entry 130 at 8.)

Rule 37(b) provides that when a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery ... the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders” that may include the following sanctions:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The rule further provides that “[i]nstead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

Imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) lies within the discretion of the court. Hathcock v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995). The Fourth Circuit “ha[s] instructed district courts to apply a four part test when determining appropriate sanctions under 37(b): ‘(1) whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice his noncompliance caused his adversary ...; (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions.’ ” Young Again Prod., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F. App'x 294, 301 (4th Cir. 2011) (ellipses in original) (quoting Mut. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assoc., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989)).

Regarding the first element, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to sanctions because of Defendants’ “repeated and flagrant refusal to comply with the discovery orders issued by this Court.” (Docket Entry 130 at 8.) Defendants, on the other hand, assert that they have been making a “herculean effort to provide Plaintiffs with the discovery as ordered.” (Docket Entry 142 at 4.) Defendants acknowledge that the Court's Order (Docket Entry 109) is in effect and that their compliance with the Order is taking longer than expected due to the large volume of records they are reviewing. (Id. at 3, 6.) However, they argue that they are not violation of the Order because they are making a good faith effort to comply “as quickly as possible.” (Id. at 4, 6.) Defendants conclude that they “should not be sanctioned for being thorough.” (Id. at 6.)

Based on Defendants’ representations, the Court does not find that Defendants are purposely stalling their productions in bad faith. However, they are in violation of the Order because they did not make the required productions within 30 days, nor did they seek an extension of that deadline from the Court. Counsel for Defendants has moved for extensions of time for various other deadlines in this case (see, e.g., Docket Entries 107, 152, 154), so the Court is puzzled as to why the same was not done here, particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ counsel's agreement to refrain from filing this motion if an extension was timely filed. Defense counsel's contention that Defendants did not seek an extension of time for making their productions because “it was not possible for Defendants to establish a firm date when discovery responses would be finished” is unpersuasive and insufficient. (Id.)

*3 Additionally, Plaintiffs have been prejudiced by Defendants’ delays in making discovery productions. Filing motions to compel and for sanctions requires time, effort, and expense. Defendants’ slow rate of production prevents Plaintiffs from developing their case in an expeditious manner.

As for deterrence, district courts are charged with managing their dockets “with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1889 (2016). Furthermore, this Court's local rules specifically instruct a party who needs more time to complete discovery to file a motion for an extension of time “prior to the expiration of the time within which discovery is required to be completed.” M.D.N.C. LR 26.1(d). Such a motion “must set forth good cause justifying the additional time and will be granted or approved only upon a showing that the parties have diligently pursued discovery.” Id. Defendants have exhibited a lack of diligence and respect for this Court's rules by failing to seek an extension of time. Because the flouting of discovery deadlines impedes the timely resolution of cases, the Court has a strong interest in deterring such behavior.

In its discretion, the Court does not find that any of the more drastic sanctions listed under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) are necessary at this juncture. This Order will instead serve as a stern warning to Defendants that the Court's orders shall be complied with in the time allotted. If compliance is not feasible, Defendants shall seek a reasonable extension before the deadline, supported by an explanation that constitutes good cause. If more time is still needed, another extension must be sought. Simply letting the Court's deadlines pass will not be tolerated going forward. The Court will, however, award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with their motion for sanctions because such expense could have been easily avoided if counsel for Defendants had sought an extension of time.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37 (Docket Entry 129) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiffs shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with their motion for sanctions. All other requests by Plaintiffs for additional sanctions are DENIED. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit to the Court no later than Friday, April 30, 2021, an affidavit describing the reasonable fees and costs associated with Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

To the extent that Defendants still have not served Plaintiffs with all documents the Court previously instructed them to produce on December 29, 2020 (Docket Entry 109),

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any outstanding production shall be completed by Defendants no later than Friday, April 30, 2021.[1] Defendants will have had four months to serve these responses. As such, the Court does not anticipate granting any further extensions of time, absent exigent circumstances. The Court will consider more drastic sanctions if Plaintiffs report that Defendants have failed to complete their productions by April 30, 2021.