*1 On January 28, 2022, Tom Santoro (“Santoro”), as Liquidating Trustee of the UVL Liquidating Trust, Assignee of Michael Harter, filed a Motion to Compel (“Motion”) against Plaintiffs Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Who Subscribe to Policy No. DOG (“Underwriters”). Dkt. No. 49. The Motion requests the Court strike improper objections and compel Underwriters to make further responses and produce documents responsive to Santoro's First Set of Document Demands (“RFPs”), First Set of Interrogatories (“Rogs”), and First Request for Admissions (“RFAs”). Id. The Motion noticed a hearing for March 9, 2022. Id. On February 11, 2022, the Court vacated the March 9 hearing and ordered the parties to meet and confer further and file a joint status report. Dkt. No. 59. To the extent disputes remained after the meet and confer, Underwriters' opposition to the Motion would be due by February 25, 2022 and Santoro's reply would be due by March 4, 2022. Id. The parties filed their joint status report on February 18, 2022. Dkt. No. 60. Underwriters did not file an opposition to the Motion. Santoro filed a Reply on March 4, 2022. Dkt. No. 63.

The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Santoro's Motion is GRANTED as unopposed, and Underwriters shall provide supplemental responses and production by March 21, 2022. Underwriters may file a response to Santoro's request for sanctions by March 14, 2022.

I. Background

Santoro served Underwriters with the RFPs, Rogs, and RFAs at issue on July 28, 2021. Dkt. No. 47 (“Santoro Br.”)[1] at 1. After several extensions, Underwriters served their responses on October 12, 2021, but did not produce any responsive documents. Mot. at 3; Decl. of Dana R. Quick in Support of Mot. (“Quick Mot. Decl.”) ¶ 5.

The parties met and conferred by telephone on November 17, 2021 and December 13, 2021. Mot. at 3-4. On December 17, 2021, Underwriters served supplemental responses to the Rogs and RFAs, but did not supplement its responses to the RFPs. Id. at 4.

On January 19, 2022, Santoro prepared and provided Underwriters with a draft of a joint stipulation for its Motion. Mot. at 4. Santoro did not receive a timely response before filing the Motion on January 27, 2022. Id.

On February 7, 2022, the parties emailed the Court requesting an informal discovery conference (“IDC”). See Decl. of Dana R. Quick in Support of Reply (“Quick Reply Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-7. On February 11, 2022, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer on the pending Motion and IDC request and file a joint status report. Dkt. No. 59. To the extent disputes remained, Underwriters' opposition to the Motion would be due by February 25, 2022 and Santoro's Reply would be due by March 4, 2022. Id.

On February 16, 2022, the parties met and conferred as ordered by the Court. Quick Reply Decl. ¶ 11. On February 18, 2022, the parties filed their joint status report. Dkt. No. 60 (“Status Report”).

*2 On February 25, 2022, Underwriters served a privilege log and a document titled Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses to Tom Santoro's First Set of Requests for Admission. Quick Reply Decl. ¶ 19.

On March 4, 2022, Santoro filed his Reply to the Motion. Dkt. No. 63.

II. The Parties' Arguments

In its January 27, 2022 brief, Santoro argued that Underwriters' supplemental responses to the Rogs and RFAs were unresponsive and incomplete with unwarranted qualifications. Santoro Br. at 1-2. They did not address the general objections and attempted to assert untimely objections. Id. at 1. The Rog responses were not accompanied by a jurat page with the signature of the person who attests to the answers. Id. The RFP responses contained general and boilerplate objections. Id. at 2. Santoro asserted that Underwriters' general objections to the RFPs and Rogs are improper and should be stricken. Santoro Br. at 4, 62. Santoro moved to compel further responses and production to RFP Nos. 1-27, Rog Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 22-24, and RFA Nos. 28, 36, 37, 40, and 41. Id. at 5-60; 63-83.

In their February 7, 2022 joint email to the Court requesting an IDC, the parties provided their positions on the pending discovery disputes. See Quick Reply Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Santoro's positions were the same as those in his brief in support of his Motion. Underwriters indicated that it would further supplement its responses to the Rogs and RFAs and provide a jurat page for the Rogs responses. Quick Reply Decl. ¶ 6. Underwriters indicated it would provide supplemental responses to the RFPs and that documents were produced as part of a further production of documents. Id.

In the February 18, 2022 joint status report, Underwriters agreed to the following for the RFPs: (1) to withdraw the general objections; (2) to withdraw the privilege objection based on the definition of the term “Underwriters” based on the removal of “attorneys” from the definition; (3) to withdraw its objection that documents or information are in the “possession of the propounding party”; (4) to either withdraw boilerplate objections or supplement them to include the specificity required, and to supplement RFP Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 24-27; (5) to provide a privilege log; (6) to produce responsive documents by February 25, 2022; and (7) to add a statement to each response advising whether responsive documents are being withheld based on an asserted objection. See Joint Status Report at 5, 7-8. As to the Rogs, Underwriters agreed to the following: (1) to withdraw the general objections; and (2) to withdraw its objection that documents or information are in the “possession of the propounding party.” Status Report at 5. Counsel had insufficient time to discuss the RFAs. Id.

Some disputes remained as of the filing of the joint status report. Underwriters had still not provided any supplemental responses, documents, or a privilege log. Status Report at 2. Santoro argued that Underwriters was not prepared to meaningfully confer on most of the items raised. Id. at 3. Santoro asserted that the parties agreed that Underwriters would serve supplemental responses to all three sets of discovery requests by February 17, 2022, but Underwriters failed to do so and changed the deadline to February 25, 2022. Id. at 3, 6. Santoro also stated that Underwriters agreed to provide a proposed stipulated protective order, but failed to do so. Id. at 4. As to Rog Nos. 9-11, Underwriters stated it would not supplement its responses to provide the requested definitions of the operative terms from the Policy's IvI Exclusion. Id. at 6. Santoro requested clarification regarding the sources or custodians of documents, but Underwriters had not provided a response. Id. Santoro indicated it would seek sanctions against Underwriters for its failure to comply with or cooperate in the discovery procedures. Id. at 7.

*3 In its portion of the joint status report, Underwriters stated that it would provide a privilege log, further responsive documents to the RFPs, supplemental responses to the special interrogatories, and supplemental responses to the RFAs by February 25, 2022. Id. at 8.

Underwriters did not file an opposition to the Motion and therefore has not provided any arguments in support of its position on any disputes remaining after the parties' February 16, 2022 conferral and the February 18, 2022 joint status report.

In his Reply, Santoro argues that the Motion is unopposed because Underwriters did not file a response or otherwise oppose the Motion. Reply at 2. Santoro contends that the document titled Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses to Tom Santoro's First Set of Requests for Admission did not incorporate any revisions to the prior supplemental responses to the RFAs and the only difference is the date of service. Id. at 5. No supplemental responses to the RFPs or Rogs were served, and no responsive documents have been produced as of the date of the Reply. Id. Santoro requests sanctions in the amount of its attorney's fees in connection with the preparation and prosecution of the Motion and supporting documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) (“Rule 37(a)(5)(A)”) and Local Rule 37-4. Id. at 6-7.

III. Analysis

On February 11, 2022, the Court re-set the briefing schedule on the Motion to the extent disputes remained after the parties met and conferred on their disputes. Dkt. No. 59. The February 18, 2022 Status Report is clear about Santoro's position that the meet and confer did not resolve all the parties' disputes. See Status Report at 6-7. At a minimum, the parties did not resolve their dispute over Santoro's request for Underwriters to supplement Rog Nos. 9-11. Id. at 6, 8. Additionally, Underwriters did not provide supplemental responses as promised by February 25, 2022. Underwriters' opposition to the Motion was due by February 25, 2022. See Dkt. No. 59. Underwriters did not file an opposition, and the Court is left without any explanation as to why Underwriters did not provide supplemental responses as promised or why Underwriters did not agree to supplement Rog Nos. 9-11. The Court deems Underwriters' failure to oppose the Motion as consent to the granting of the Motion. See L.R. 7-12. The Court GRANTS Santoro's Motion. Underwriters shall provide supplemental responses to the RFPs, Rogs, and RFAs at issue in the Motion and produce all non-privileged responsive documents to the RFPs by March 21, 2022.

Under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party ... 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,” unless an exception applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Because Santoro requested sanctions for the first time in its Reply, Underwriters has not had an opportunity to be heard on this request. Therefore, Underwriters may file a response to Santoro's request for sanctions by March 14, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Although this filing is labeled a joint stipulation, Underwriters did not provide its portion of the joint stipulation. Therefore, the Court treats the filing as Santoro's brief in support of its Motion.