Breaking Code Silence v. McNamara
Breaking Code Silence v. McNamara
2023 WL 4676858 (C.D. Cal. 2023)
March 28, 2023

Audero, Maria A.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Protective Order
Failure to Produce
Sanctions
ESI Protocol
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Orders and for Sanctions, alleging that Plaintiff had failed to appear at a scheduled mediation, failed to comply with the Court's Amended Joint E-Discovery Plan and Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, and failed to produce documents by an agreed-upon deadline. The Court struck the Motion and vacated the hearing date, inviting Defendants to contact the courtroom deputy to schedule an informal discovery conference.
Additional Decisions
Breaking Code Silence
v.
McNamara et al
Case No. 2:22-cv-02052-MAA
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed March 28, 2023
Audero, Maria A., United States Magistrate Judge

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Orders and for Sanctions (ECF No. 44)

*1 Before the Court is Defendants Katherine McNamara's and Jeremy Whiteley's (“Defendants”) Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Orders and for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court's Inherent Authority, filed March 23, 2023 (“Motion”). (Mot., ECF No. 44.) Through the Motion, Defendants allege that Plaintiff Breaking Code Silence (“Plaintiff”) (1) failed to appear at a scheduled mediation; (2) failed to comply with its obligations under the Court's Amended Joint E-Discovery Plan and Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information; (3) failed to produce a deponent for a “Person Most Qualified” deposition, advised too late that the deponent would not be available from April to July 2023, and imposes a number of health-related limitations on the deposition; (4) failed to produce documents by an agreed-upon deadline; and (5) violated the Court's Protective Order. (Id. At 2–3.) Based upon these allegations, Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Court's inherent authority, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C). (Id. at 9, 31.) In addition, they seek an order compelling Plaintiff and its counsel to comply with the e-Discovery and Protective Order provisions they purportedly violated, and compelling Plaintiff and its counsel to correct, complete, and certify their document production. (Id. at 31.)
With the exception of Defendants' claims of Plaintiff's alleged misconduct regarding a mediation, the Motion appears to be a disguised discovery motion seeking not only sanctions for discovery misconduct, but also an order compelling discovery. Such a motion violates the Court's pre-motion requirements for Mandatory Telephonic Conference for Discovery Disputes as set forth in Judge Audero's requirements. See http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-maria-audero. As such, the Court STRIKES the Motion in its entirety and VACATES its April 25, 2023 hearing date.
With respect to the discovery disputes raised in the Motion, Defendants are invited to contact Judge Audero's courtroom deputy to schedule an informal discovery conference by submitting via email to Judge Audero's chambers (MAA_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov) an Informal Discovery Conference Request (a template for which is found in Judge Audero's requirements webpage) compliant with Judge Audero's requirements.
With respect to the missed mediation, Defendants may file a motion specifically addressing that dispute.
It is so ordered.