*1 The parties requested expedited discovery assistance from this Court pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). On January 18, 2022, the parties submitted their respective letter briefs. ECF Nos. 104, 105. On January 24, 2022, this Court issued an Order on Local Rule 37.1 Discovery Dispute (“01/24/2022 Order”). ECF No. 106.

Defendants Eddie V. Aguinaldo and Imelda S. Aguinaldo (collectively, the “Aguinaldos”) subsequently submitted a letter dated February 18, 2022 (“02/18/2022 Letter”). ECF No. 115. Because the Aguinaldos are proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally construe their filings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Court thus liberally construes the 02/18/2022 Letter as a motion for reconsideration of the 01/24/2022 Order.

The Court elects to decide the Aguinaldos’ motion for reconsideration without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d). After carefully reviewing the filings and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Aguinaldos’ motion for reconsideration and AMENDS its 01/24/2022 Order.

Local Rule 60.1 permits motions seeking reconsideration upon the following grounds: “[d]iscovery of new material facts not previously available”; “[i]ntervening change in law”; and “[m]anifest error of law or fact.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) authorizes a court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Id. The Court may accomplish this sua sponte or on a motion. Id.

The 01/24/2022 Order issued the following orders, among others:

ECF No. 106 at 2 ¶¶ 2–3 (emphases added). In line item #2 of their 02/18/2022 Letter, the Aguinaldos indicate the foregoing underlined date is incorrect. ECF No. 115. The Court agrees and acknowledges that it inadvertently referred to “November 5, 2022,” when it intended to refer to “November 5, 2021.”

Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the Aguinaldos’ motion for reconsideration as to the line item #2 therein. The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration in all other respects. The Court AMENDS the 01/24/2022 Order to correct the two inadvertent references to “November 5, 2022.” The Amended Order on Local Rule 37.1 Dispute that follows supersedes this Court's 01/24/2022 Order.

*2 The parties are before the Court on a Local Rule 37.1 discovery dispute. ECF Nos. 104, 105. The parties have satisfied their meet-and-confer obligation. Id. The dispute concerns Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo's failure to respond to the United States’ Requests for Production of Documents, First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Second Set of Interrogatories (collectively, “Discovery Requests”). The Court has carefully reviewed the written submissions and rules as follows.

On November 5, 2021, the United States served Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo each with a Request for Production of Documents and a First Request for Answers to Interrogatories. On November 12, 2021, the United States served Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo each with Requests for Admissions and a Second Request for Answers to Interrogatories.

Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Aguinaldo have provided written responses to any of the Discovery Requests. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Aguinaldo have provided any explanation, justification, or excuse for their failures to respond to the Discovery Requests. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo have failed to respond to the United States’ Discovery Requests and ORDERS as follows:

1. Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo have waived any objections to the United States’ Discovery Requests. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”).

2. Mr. Aguinaldo shall respond to the United States’ First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories issued to him on November 5, 2021 and Second Set of Interrogatories issued to him on November 12, 2021, no later than February 18, 2022.

3. Mrs. Aguinaldo shall respond to the United States’ First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories issued to her on November 5, 2021 and Second Set of Interrogatories issued to her on November 12, 2021, no later than February 18, 2022.

4. The United States’ Requests for Admission issued to Mr. Aguinaldo on November 12, 2021 were automatically deemed admitted as a result of Mr. Aguinaldo's failure to provide a timely response thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“A matter is admitted unless ... the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection ....”).

5. The United States’ Requests for Admission issued to Mrs. Aguinaldo on November 12, 2021 were automatically deemed admitted as a result of Mr. Aguinaldo's failure to provide a timely response thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“A matter is admitted unless ... the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection ....”).

6. The Court awards the United States its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). The United States shall file a declaration setting forth the attorneys’ fees and costs it seeks by February 2, 2022. Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo may file any objections to the United States’ declaration by February 10, 2022.

7. The Court cautions Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo that under Local Rule 81.1, a pro se party is required to abide by all local, federal, and other applicable rules and statutes. A pro se party's failure to do so may result in sanctions, including but not limited to entry of default. Id.; see also LR11.1 (“Failure of counsel or a party to comply with any provision of the Local Rules is a ground for imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a fine or dismissal.”). The Court warns Mr. and Mrs. Aguinaldo that it will entertain a motion for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 if they continue to circumvent their obligation to fully comply with their discovery obligations.

*3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 8, 2022.