Better Care Plastic Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Gredale LLC
Better Care Plastic Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Gredale LLC
2022 WL 16894849 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
September 12, 2022

Pym, Sheri,  United States Magistrate Judge

Sanctions
Cost Recovery
Failure to Produce
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel responses to discovery as moot, and denied plaintiff's request for sanctions due to defendants' new counsel needing additional time to become familiar with the case and fulfill defendants' continuing obligation to provide complete and accurate responses to the outstanding discovery requests.
Better Care Plastic Technology Co., Ltd.
v.
Gredale LLC, et al
Case No. 5:21-cv-00216-JWH-SP
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed September 12, 2022

Counsel

Kimberly I. Carter, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: None
None, Court Reporter / Recorder, Attorneys Present for Defendants: None
Pym, Sheri, United States Magistrate Judge

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as Moot [85]

I. INTRODUCTION
*1 On August 9, 2022, plaintiff Better Care Plastic Technology Co., LTD. filed a motion to compel defendants Gredale, LLC and Stop C-19, LLC to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Docket no. 85. Plaintiff's position is set forth in a purported joint stipulation (“JS”), although defendants failued to supply their position. Plaintiff's position is supported by the declaration of its counsel Ashley M. Koley (“Koley Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. On August 24, 2022, defendants filed an opposition with attached exhibits. Docket no. 87. On August 29, 2022, plaintiff filed a reply supported by the supplemental declaration of its counsel Koley (“Koley Supp. Decl.”). Docket no. 89.
The court found a hearing on the motion would not be of assistance and so vacated the hearing scheduled for September 13, 2022. The court now finds the motion moot and denies plaintiff's request for sanctions against defendants.
II. BACKGROUND
This case involves the alleged unauthorized use of plaintiff's 510(k) number and unauthorized marketing and sale of patient examination gloves.
As relevant here, plaintiff served discovery requests on both defendants Gredale and Stop C-19 on April 20, 2022. Koley Decl. ¶ 2-5, Exs. A, B, C, D. Defendants' prior counsel, Paul Bost, notified plaintiff that defendants were substituting counsel on May 5, 2022. Koley Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E at 1-2. Defendants' counsel requested and were granted an extension to serve outstanding discovery responses on May 10, 2022. Id., Ex. E at 1. The parties filed a stipulation requesting the court to extend the discovery cut-off from December 9, 2022 to March 3, 2023, which the court granted on May 19, 2022. Docket nos. 79, 81.
Thereafter, defendant requested and plaintiff granted additional extensions to respond to discovery, but with the understanding objections had been waived. See Koley. Decl., Ex. F, Ex. J at 2-3, 5. On July 11, 2022 the parties met and conferred about the outstanding discovery responses. Koley Decl. ¶ 8. Defendants once again requested an extension on August 8, 2022, indicating counsel needed more time to review records produced from prior counsel, but plaintiff denied this request. Koley Decl., Ex. J at 1-2. Defendants finally served the outstanding discovery responses on August 24, 2022, after plaintiff had already filed this motion to compel. Koley Suppl. Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff now seeks to recover attorney's fees incurred in bringing this motion.
III. DISCUSSION
In its motion, plaintiff sought to compel responses to its Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Set of Requests for Production to Gredale, and its Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production to Stop C-19. After this motion was filed, defendants complied with their discovery obligations and served their responses. Plaintiff does not here argue that these responses are deficient, and effectively concedes in reply that the motion to compel responses is now moot. Nevertheless, plaintiff continues to seek monetary sanctions in the form of attorney's fees it incurred in bringing this motion as a result of defendants' failure to timely respond to discovery.
*2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) provides that if the discovery is provided after the motion is filed then the filing party is entitled to an award of its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion, including attorney's fees, except no payment should be ordered if: (1) the motion was filed before the moving party made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute; (2) the losing party's position was substantially justified; or (3) other circumstances make award of expenses unjust.
The court finds sanctions are, barely, not warranted at this time. The court understands plaintiff's frustration caused by defendants' repeated delays in this matter, and it may well be that it took the filing of the instant motion to get defendants to finally provide responses. But at the same time, the court acknowledges defendants' new counsel needed additional time to become familiar with the case and fulfill defendants' continuing obligation to provide complete and accurate responses to the outstanding discovery requests. See Koley Decl., Ex. J. This is not a case where defendants simply ignored the discovery requests. Defendants' counsel was forthcoming about needing more time and communicated this need to plaintiff on numerous occasions. See Koley Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E at 1-2; see also Koley Decl. ¶ 8; see also docket no. 85, Ex. J at 2-3, 5.
Given these circumstances, the court finds that defendants' delay here in responding to discovery does not warrant sanctions. But while the court is again giving defendants the benefit of the doubt, this time due to the presence of new counsel, defendants should not expect this leniency to continue. The court again warns defendants that failure to timely respond to discovery requests in the future will likely subject them to sanctions. See also docket no. 71 at 11.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies plaintiff's motion to compel responses to discovery (docket no. 85) as moot, and denies plaintiff's request for sanctions.