*1 Before the Court is an Order to Show Cause as to Defendant Kentech Consulting, Inc.'s (“Defendant Kentech”) and Plaintiff Virgina Abrogina's (“Plaintiff”) Reply to Defendant Kentech's Response to Order to Show Cause seeking sanctions against Defendant Kentech (hereinafter referred to as “Sanctions Motion”). (ECF No. 90, 93.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Defendant Kentech and Defendant Backgroundchecks.com[1] for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”), California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code Section 1786 et seq. (“FICRAA”), and the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. See generally Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 42.

A. March 2, 2022 Discovery Dispute

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant Kentech (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”) jointly contacted this Court's chambers to raise two discovery disputes pertaining to Defendant Kentech's second set of supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) No. 21 and 22 and Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) No. 28 and 29. (ECF No. 60.)

On March 3, 2022, the Court ordered briefing and set a Joint Video Discovery Conference for March 24, 2022. Id. On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed her discovery brief which sought an order to compel Defendant Kentech's production of documents responsive to SROGs No. 21 and 22, and RFP No. 28 and 29. (“Motion to Compel”, ECF No. 61.) On March 10, 2022, Defendant Kentech timely filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 62.)

In relevant part, the discovery and responses at issue were as follow:

Plaintiff argued the consumer reports sought by ROGs No. 21 and 22 and RFP No. 28 and 29 were relevant and proportional to the allegations raised by Plaintiff and relate to Plaintiff's ability to ascertain the potential size of two putative subclasses. See ECF No. 61 at 3-12. Plaintiff also argued Defendant Kentech's responses were boilerplate, vague, and Defendant Kentech failed to support its objections regarding the burdensomeness of producing responsive documents. Id.

In turn, Defendant Kentech argued the discovery sought was not relevant to the alleged violations of the FCRA, was not probative of a viable subclass, and was unduly burdensome beyond the needs of the case. See ECF No. 62 at 2-9. Defendant Kentech argued the document production was burdensome because the data contained in the consumer reports was stored by a third-party which licensed Defendant Kentech's software. Id. at 6:7-12. Defendant Kentech represented it was “unaware of any electronic or computerized ‘query’ that can be performed or utilized to search reports which specifically omit any one of Plaintiff's specific data categories.... As such, a manual review process would be necessary to obtain potentially responsive information to Plaintiff's requests.” Id. at 6:13-17. Defendant Kentech represented that (1) the manual review would require Defendant Kentech to hire a paralegal to manually review each consumer report for responsiveness, (2) the universe of consumer reports to be reviewed was 13,199 reports, with a subset of 1,818 consumer reports containing public records related to criminal arrest, charge, or conviction that were produced to third-parties for employment purposes, and (3) it would take “approximately 1,100 hours to 3,300 hours to provide Plaintiff with the requested information in response to Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22 and, in turn, Request for Production No. 28.” Id. at 7:9-12. Defendant Kentech represented the monetary costs of hiring a paralegal to perform the manual review would cost $1,000 to onboard and “approximately $27,500 to $82,500 (which is $25 per hour multiplied by 1,100 hours and 3,300 hours) to hire one paralegal to perform the tasks required.” Id. at 8:1-19.

As to RFP No. 29, Defendant Kentech represented that “[i]n order to provide the requested list of individuals for whom Kentech has furnished a consumer report for employment purposes and whose report contains both “COPS 360 product” and “Investigative or County Validation product,” ... Kentech would need to manually review the 267 consumer reports produced for employment purposes mentioned in Kentech's Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 24.” (ECF No. 62 at 9:11-10:10.)

B. March 24, 2022 Discovery Conference and Order

On March 24, 2022, the Court convened a Joint Video Discovery Conference regarding the two disputes (“March 24, 2022 Conference”). (ECF No. 66.) Devin Fok and Joseph Lee appeared for Plaintiff. Id. Kevin R. Lussier and Katherine Schantz-Bekken appeared for Defendant Kentech. Id. During the March 24, 2022 Conference, Defendant Kentech's counsel confirmed that the 1,118 consumer reports potentially responsive to SROG No. 22 and the 267 consumer reports potentially responsive to RFP No. 29 were subsumed into the 13,199 consumer reports potentially responsive to SROGs No. 21, 22, and RFP No. 28. (ECF No. 77 at 16:9-17:12; 37:4-12.)

*4 Upon questioning by the Court, Defendant Kentech's counsel represented that he would consult with his client to determine a means to electronically produce the 13,199 consumer reports and conceded that the burden of the production would no longer exist if Defendant Kentech were able to produce the consumer reports electronically. See ECF No. 77 at 30:7-31:4. Plaintiff's counsel also made representations that if electronic production was feasible, Plaintiff would take on the laboring oar of reviewing the 13,199 consumer reports for relevance and responsiveness to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. See ECF No. 77 at 31:5-34:24.

Based upon these representations, the Court determined the expedient manner to resolve the current disputes and any potential future disputes related to this production was for Defendant Kentech to produce all 13,199 consumer reports electronically and for Plaintiff to take on the task of reviewing the 13,199 consumer reports for relevance and responsiveness to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. See ECF No. 77 at 31:5-37:3; 40:1-42:11. The Court instructed Defendant's counsel to determine whether electronic production of the 13,199 consumer reports was feasible and inform the Court accordingly. See id.

That same day, the Court issued an order requiring the Parties to file a Joint Status Report to update the Court on Defendant Kentech's ability to produce the 13,199 consumer reports and if so, whether the discovery disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant Kentech were resolved. (ECF No. 66.)

C. Subsequent Joint Status Reports and Joint Status Conferences

i. March 29, 2022 Joint Status Report and March 30, 2022 Order

On March 29, 2022, the Parties filed their first Joint Status Report apprising the Court of its progress. (ECF No. 67, 74.) In pertinent part, the Joint Status Report stated: “In response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 21 and 22 and Request for Production Nos. 28 and 29, Kentech intends to produce all consumer reports for whom Kentech has furnished to any third party and whose report contains any negative public record of criminal arrest, charge, or conviction, between February 5, 2014 to present”, that Defendant Kentech had contacted the third party in possession of the consumer reports to determine the logistics to produce the responsive documents “in the most cost-efficient and effective manner ... and will advise Plaintiff's counsel of the manner in which the documents, information, and/or data can be produced, as well as the anticipated timeline for that production, as soon as it learns of the same.” (ECF No. 67 at 2:3-15.) The Joint Status Report also stated “Kentech intends to make all necessary efforts to produce these consumer reports by a target deadline of April 21, 2022, or soon thereafter”. Id. at 2:23-24.

In light of the representations made in the March 29, 2022 Joint Status Report, on March 30, 2022, the Court issued an order noting that it appeared the Parties were on their way to resolving the discovery disputes raised by Plaintiff and set a Joint Status Report deadline of April 25, 2022. (ECF No. 69.)

ii. April 25, 2022 Joint Status Report

On April 25, 2022, the Parties filed a second Joint Status Report which stated Defendant Kentech had not produced any documents responsive to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21 and 22, and RFPs No. 28 and 29. (ECF No. 79.) The Joint Status Report stated the third party in possession of the responsive data had informed Defendant Kentech that electronic production of the consumer reports would require “a data transfer dump via a file transfer protocol which would entail utilizing an archival system to transfer encrypted report data into a secure file system which is accessed using specified login credentials” and “[t]he encrypted report data must be manually decrypted using a decryption program using an access key” to create a viewable format which required a manual search to determine responsiveness to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Id. at 2:18-3:6.

*5 The Joint Status Report further stated the third party indicated the process of transferring the encrypted data to the archival system and separate folders would take approximately two to three days. Id. at 3:15-17. The Joint Status Report also stated that “If the third party determines that the folders cannot be filtered and Kentech must review the folder file numbers and convert the relevant encrypted data to a reviewable form before producing the documents, information, and/or data to Plaintiff, Kentech will need to obtain the data first before providing an estimated time to complete the foregoing process.” Id. at 3:17-21.

iii. April 26, 2022 Joint Status Conference

On April 26, 2022, the Court convened a Joint Status Conference (“April 26, 2022 Conference”) to determine the delay in Defendant Kentech's production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21 and 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. (ECF No. 80.) Devin Fok and Joseph Lee appeared for Plaintiff. Id. Katherine Schantz-Bekken appeared for Defendant Kentech. Id. Leah Tedford appeared for Defendant Backgroundchecks.com. Id.

During the conference, the Court questioned why the April 26, 2022 Joint Status Report stated the third party in possession of Defendant Kentech's data indicated it would only take two or three days to transfer the encrypted data from the archival system yet there has been no progress towards production even though the Parties' last conference with the Court was on March 29, 2022, approximately thirty days prior to the April 26, 2022 Joint Status Report. The Court further questioned Defendant Kentech's good faith effort to produce the consumer reports. Defendant Kentech's counsel represented Defendant Kentech was working diligently to contact the third party and has been trying to coordinate with Defendant Kentech's clients to find the most efficient way to produce documents so Defendant Kentech would not be required to screen the documents before transfer to Plaintiff. Defendant Kentech also justified screening the document productions, despite the Parties earlier agreement that Plaintiff would undertake the task of filtering through the documents to determine relevancy and responsiveness, by representing that Defendant Kentech's encrypted data was stored on servers for a finite period of time and then transferred to an archival platform which precluded transferring select portions of data – it had to be all or nothing. Thus, all of Defendant Kentech's data, related to the consumer reports or otherwise, would be transferred. Counsel represented that Defendant Kentech would then need to go through all of the archived data to find the 13,199 consumer reports.

The Court advised the Parties that the potential for sanctions may ensue against Defendant Kentech if the third-party and Defendant Kentech failed to make progress towards producing the responsive documents. The Court advised Defendant Kentech to express the urgency and obligation of document production to the third party in possession of Defendant Kentech's data. Defendant Kentech's counsel proposed an additional two weeks so Defendant Kentech could convey the urgency and work with the third-party and counsel's client. Defendant Kentech's counsel also proposed that the Court set a targeted production timeline at a subsequent Joint Status Conference after the additional two weeks. Based upon the representations made during the April 26, 2022 Conference, the Court agreed to a two week extension and ordered the Parties to file a Joint Status Report updating the Court on the status of Defendant Kentech's production and set a Joint Status Conference for May 11, 2022. (ECF No. 81.)

iv. May 10, 2022 Joint Status Report

*6 On May 10, 2022, the Parties filed a third Joint Status Report. (ECF No. 82.) In relevant part, Plaintiff represented that Defendant Kentech had not yet produced any consumer reports but stated it would produce a batch of reports by May 13, 2022 and continue to produce approximately 4,000 reports on a bi-weekly basis until completion by June 17, 2022. Id. at 2:7-10.

Defendant Kentech represented it “had secured professional assistance (“Task Personnel”) to conduct the process of downloading and saving the report information and data at issue into a Portable Document Format (“PDF”)” and “[b]ased on the total number of reports at issue (13,199 reports)” Defendant Kentech “[was] in the process of first producing the 1,818 consumer reports” furnished to third parties for employment purposes and contained public record information relating to a criminal arrest, charge, or conviction between February 5, 2014 to present (“Employment-Purposed Reports”). See ECF No. 82 at 3:3-13. Defendant Kentech proposed continued production of the consumer reports ordered for non-employment purposes on a bi-weekly rolling basis as the downloads were completed. Id. at 3:14-17. Defendant Kentech further represented it intended to produce the first group of Employment-Purposed Reports by May 13, 2022, which would “contain at least 600 Employment-Purposed Reports, if not the entirety of the Employment-Purposed Reports.” Id. at 3:22-26. Defendant Kentech also stated the Task Personnel estimated it likely could produce approximately 4,000 reports every two weeks thus “the transfer of the reports at issue will likely be completed by June 17, 2022.” Id. at 4:1-5.

The Joint Status Report also sought a ninety-day continuance of the fact and expert discovery deadlines due to the forthcoming document production. Id. at 2:18-21.

v. May 11, 2022 Joint Status Conference and Amended Scheduling Order

On May 11, 2022, the Court convened a second Joint Status Conference regarding Defendant Kentech's production of the 13,199 consumer reports. (“May 11, 2022 Conference”, ECF No. 83, 84.) Devin Fok appeared for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 84.) Katherine Schantz-Bekken appeared for Defendant Kentech. Id. Leah Tedford and Harrison Scott Kelly appeared for Defendant Backgroundchecks.com. During the conference Defendant Kentech represented that it intended to produce the first batch of documents on Friday, May 13, 2022, with subsequent bi-weekly productions until completion of the transfer by June 17, 2022. Id.

Accepting this representation, on May 12, 2022 the Court issued an order modifying the Scheduling Order and continued the fact and expert discovery deadlines and related dates. See ECF No. 84. The Court's Amended Scheduling Order also stated that failure by Defendant Kentech to meet the May 13, 2022 and June 17, 2022 production schedule and deadlines could result in sanctions being imposed. Id.

vi. June 20, 2022 Joint Status Report

On June 20, 2022, the Parties filed a fourth Joint Status Report regarding the status of Defendant Kentech's document production. (ECF No. 86.) In pertinent part, Plaintiff reported that Defendant Kentech had produced a total of 6,022 consumer reports as of June 20, 2022. Id. at 2:10-15. The first production occurred on May 13, 2022, the second production on May 27, 2022, and a third production on June 20, 2022. Id.

The Joint Status Report also included Defendant Kentech's position that the Task Personnel have worked diligently to produce the consumer reports since the May 11, 2022 Conference and the third set of production was being “produced to Plaintiff's counsel on a continuous basis as a result of an unforeseen obstacle the Task Personnel encountered.” Id. at 3:24-4:5. Defendant Kentech represented the unforeseen obstacle was due to the consumer reports' inclusion of police department background check reports which required significant redactions due to the highly personal and consumer-specific information that was non-responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Id. at 4:5-16. The highly personal and consumer-specific information consisted of “interviews of applications, interviews of neighbors of applicants, relationship status information” and Task Personnel was unable to determine whether each report contained such information until it was fully downloaded. Id. Defendant Kentech represented that the time required to review the reports and redact the highly personal and consumer-specific information had slowed the production process however the Task Personnel continued to upload the reports throughout the day on June 20, 2022 and would continue to do so. Id. at 3:17-21. Defendant Kentech reported it had produced 6,417 consumer reports as of June 20, 2022 and would have an updated number at the June 22, 2022 Joint Status Conference. Id. at 3:22-26.

D. June 22, 2022 Joint Status Conference and Order

*7 On June 22, 2022, the Court convened a third Joint Status Conference regarding Defendant Kentech's production of consumer reports responsive to the ongoing discovery dispute. See ECF No. 87, 88. Joseph Lee appeared for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 88.) Katherine Schantz-Bekken appeared for Defendant Kentech. Id. H. Scott Kelly appeared for Defendant Backgroundchecks.com. Id. During the Joint Status Conference, Defendant Kentech reported that an additional 578 consumer reports had been produced since June 20, 2022, rendering the total number of consumer reports produced as 6,600. Id.

Additionally, Defendant Kentech represented that the previously identified 13,199 consumer reports included “dummy reports” or test reports which did not contain information related to real individuals, and the total number of responsive documents was actually less than 13,199. See ECF No. 90. Despite this representation, the Court instructed Defendant Kentech to produce all 13,199 consumer reports previously identified in its responses to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21 and 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29, including any “dummy reports” or test reports. Id.

That same day, the Court issued an order requiring Defendant Kentech produce all 13,199 consumer reports by June 24, 2022. (“June 22, 2022 Order”, ECF No. 88.) The document production was to include all 13,199 responsive documents Defendant Kentech previously identified in its written responses to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21 and 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. Id. Given the existence of a Protective Order and to avoid further delays, the document production was not to include any redactions to the consumer reports, including all previous consumer reports Defendant Kentech had produced between May 13, 2022 and June 22, 2022. Id.

The June 22, 2022 Order also required the Parties to file a Joint Status Report by June 28, 2022 and stated if Defendant Kentech's failure to produce all 13,199 consumer reports by June 24, 2022, the Court would issue an Order to Show Cause against Defendant Kentech. Id.

E. June 28, 2022 Joint Status Report

On June 28, 2022 the Parties filed a fifth Joint Status Report updating the Court as to the status of Defendant Kentech's document production. (ECF No. 89.) The Joint Status Report indicated Defendant Kentech did not produce any documents by the June 24, 2022 deadline. Id. Instead, on June 25, 2022, Defendant Kentech produced 7,223 unredacted consumer reports and took the position that the correct number of responsive consumer reports is actually 9,207 not 13,199. Id. at 2:23-3:9. Defendant Kentech represented this error was discovered through obtaining, downloading, and physically reviewing the reports, and the remaining 1,983 consumer reports would be produced by July 1, 2022. Id.

F. June 29, 2022 Order to Show Cause and Present Motion

On June 29, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) requiring Defendant Kentech to explain why sanctions should not issue against Defendant Kentech for its failure to comply with the Court's June 22, 2022 Order, which mandated the production of 13,199 consumer reports related to the discovery disputes raised by Plaintiff on March 2, 2022. (ECF No. 90.)

On July 6, 2022, Defendant Kentech filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 91.) On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant Kentech's Response to Order to Show Cause requesting sanctions against Defendant Kentech (hereinafter referred to as “Sanctions Motion”). (ECF No. 93.)

On July 13, 2022, the Court ordered (1) Plaintiff's counsel to submit supplemental exhibits detailing Plaintiff's counsel's billing records for time incurred on the March 2, 2022 discovery disputes and subsequent document production, and (2) Defendant Kentech to file a brief responding to Plaintiff's Sanction Motion. (ECF No. 94.) On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed supplemental exhibits detailing Plaintiff's counsel's billing records. (ECF No. 97.) On July 21, Defendant Kentech timely filed a Reply Brief to Plaintiff's Sanction Motion. (ECF No. 98.)

*8 On July 28, 2022, the Court convened an OSC Hearing (“OSC Hearing”). (ECF No. 99.) Devin Fok and Joseph Lee appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Kevin Lussier appeared on behalf of Defendant Kentech. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Court submitted this matter for consideration.

A. Legal Standard

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) governs a party's failure to cooperate in discovery.

i. Fee Shifting Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A)

If the Court grants a motion to compel discovery, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

But the Court must not order such payment if the opposing party's nondisclosure was substantially justified or if other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii). “The party contesting the discovery sanction on a properly brought motion under Rule 37(a)(5) bears the burden of establishing substantial justification or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” RG Abrams Ins. v. L. Offs. of C.R. Abrams, No. 221CV00194FLAMAAX, 2021 WL 4974050, at *16 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2021) (citing Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1994)). See also Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The party against whom an award of expenses is sought has the burden of showing the special circumstances that make his or her failure to comply substantially justified”).

Additionally, where—as here—the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the Court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).

ii. Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides: “[i]f a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a party's failure to obey a discovery order requires the court to “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).

iii. Sanction's Under the Court's Inherent Power

A district court has the inherent power “to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). Civil Local Rule 83.1(a) provides that the district court has the discretion to impose “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys' fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions,” for the failure of counsel, or of any party, to comply with the Court's Local Rules, with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with any order of the court. See CivLR 83.1(a).

*9 The Court's authority to award sanctions is broad and contemplates a range as Rule 37 “authorizes the district court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1052 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2015) citing Johnson v. Sisodia, 2015 WL 1746553, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Apr. 16, 2015); citing Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus. Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.1983) (citing Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643(1976)). “The decision whether to penalize a party for dilatory conduct during discovery proceedings is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Bollow v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 1981) referencing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (4); e. g., Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 640 (9th Cir. 1978). “[B]y the very nature of its language, sanctions imposed under Rule 37 must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Popescu v. City of San Diego, 2017 WL 747940, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (citing O'Connell v. Fernandez–Pol, 542 Fed.Appx. 546, 547-48 (9th Cir. 2013) and Craig v. Far West Eng'g Co., 265 F.2d 251, 260 (9th Cir. 1959).)

B. Summary of the Court's Ruling on Plaintiff's Motions to Compel

i. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

Plaintiff's first Motion to Compel filed on March 10, 2022 (ECF No. 61), requested the Court to (1) find Defendant Kentech's objections to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29 were improper, deemed waived; (2) overrule Defendant Kentech's objections to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29; and (3) compel production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. See ECF No. 61.

At the March 24, 2022 Conference, Defendant Kentech's counsel represented that Defendant Kentech would need weeks to review and redact sensitive and irrelevant information before producing the reports to Plaintiff with a summary of consumer information responsive to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. (ECF No. 77 at 28:24-31:4.) The Court determined, given the existence of a protective order, the most expedient manner to resolve the current disputes and to avoid any potential future disputes related to this production was for Defendant Kentech to produce all 13,199 consumer reports electronically and without redaction and for Plaintiff to take on the task of reviewing the 13,199 consumer reports for relevance and responsiveness to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29. See ECF No. 77 at 31:5-37:3; 40:1-42:11. Both parties agreed with this time-saving and labor-shifting arrangement. Although the Court's ruling fashioned a compromised between both Parties, in essence it also granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Id.

ii. Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion's Request to Compel

In light of the production delays, Defendant Kentech's failures to produce the 13,199 consumer reports, and Defendant Kentech's June 28, 2022 representations that the total number of responsive consumer reports was 9,207 and not 13,199, Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion filed on July 13, 2022 sought an order compelling Defendant Kentech to produce all documentation and communication, waiving all objections and defenses, between Defendant Kentech and its third party vendor relating to:

*10 (ECF No. 93 at 7-8.)

At the OSC Hearing, Defendant Kentech argued against further compulsion of these records in light of the fact that as of July 1, 2022 Plaintiff was in possession of all 9,207 responsive consumer reports. Defendant Kentech represented that its client, Kenneth Coats (“Mr. Coats”), was originally asked to compute the number of potentially responsive consumer reports in October 2021 and that number of 13,199 consumer reports was the basis of Defendant Kentech's responses to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21 and 22. Defendant Kentech represented this erroneous number was due to Mr. Coats' failure to review the underlying records comprising of this total and he did not realize his mistake until the Court ordered supplemental production of these documents. Finally, Defendant Kentech represented it was confident the accurate and total number of responsive consumer reports was 9,207.

Although Plaintiff argued it had been prejudiced by the ongoing document production and time spent obtaining this production, Plaintiff did not contest that it had received the 9,207 consumer reports by July 1, 2022.

Based upon the representations made by Defendant Kentech in its Response to OSC and at the OSC Hearing, the Court accepts Defendant's counsel's representations about his client's calculations errors and that 9,207 is the accurate and total number of responsive consumer reports which were produced by July 1, 2022.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion's request to compel additional documentation and communication between Defendant Kentech and its third-party vendor, related to obtaining and producing the 13,199 or 9,2017 consumer reports.

C. Summary of Defendant's Failure to Comply with Production Deadlines and the Court's Orders

In its Response to the Court's OSC and at the OSC Hearing, Defendant Kentech argued sanctions should not ensue for five reasons: (1) throughout the discovery dispute Defendant Kentech made a good faith effort to timely produce the responsive consumer reports at issue, (2) Defendant Kentech redacted certain reports in good faith, (3) Defendant Kentech did not provide the entirety of the consumer reports by June 24, 2022 due to counsel's mistake of inadvertently falling asleep before sending the unredacted consumer reports, (4) Defendant Kentech's interrogatory responses mistakenly identified an inflated number of potentially responsive reports, and (5) as of July 1, 2022 Plaintiff was in possession of all 9,207 responsive consumer reports. (ECF No. 91 at 1-6.)

Although the Court accepted Defendant's counsel's representations at the OSC Hearing about counsel inadvertently falling asleep, (an unfortunate occurrence which could have been avoided entirely had counsel not waited until literally the last hour to make production), and Defendant Kentech's client's error in reading the data resulting in an inflated number of potentially responsive consumer reports, the record clearly demonstrates Defendant Kentech had multiple opportunities to meet the Court's deadlines and failed to do so.

i. Initial April 27, 2022 Deadline

*11 On March 29, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Status Report where Defendant Kentech agreed to provide all consumer reports and set forth an initial “target deadline of April 21, 2022”. (ECF No. 67 and 74.) As demonstrated by the Parties' April 25, 2022 Joint Status Report, Defendant Kentech did not meet this deadline. (ECF No. 79.)

Notwithstanding Defendant Kentech's failure to meet its own April 21, 2022 deadline, the Court agreed to a two week extension and ordered the Parties to file a Joint Status Report updating the Court on the status of Defendant Kentech's production, including a targeted production deadline, and set a Status Conference for May 11, 2022. See ECF No. 81.

ii. Failure to Comply with May 12, 2022 Order and Meet June 17, 2022 Deadline

On May 10, 2022, through a Joint Status Report, Defendant Kentech represented that it had secured professional assistance to aid counsel with the document production and set forth a production timeline and completion date of June 17, 2022. (ECF No. 82.) Defendant Kentech made these same representations and proposed the June 17, 2022 deadline at the May 11, 2022 Conference.

Accepting these representations, on May 12, 2022 the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order which incorporated the June 17, 2022 deadline. See ECF No. 84. As demonstrated by the Parties' June 20, 2022 Joint Status Report, Defendant Kentech clearly did not meet the June 17, 2022 deadline as it had only produced 1,807 consumer reports on May 13, 2022 and 2,718 reports by May 27, 2022. (ECF No. 86.) Defendant Kentech's final production on June 20, 2022 was 1,497 consumer reports, totaling 6,022 consumer reports after June 17, 2022. Id.

iii. Failure to Comply with June 22, 2022 Order and June 24, 2022 Deadline

Despite Defendant Kentech's failure to meet the June 17, 2022 deadline, the Court set a third production deadline and provided yet another opportunity to produce all 13,199 consumer reports. (ECF No. 88.) The Court's June 22, 2022 Order required Defendant Kentech to produce all 13,199 consumer reports previously identified in its responses to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21 and 22 and RFPs No. 28 and 29, including any “dummy reports” or test reports by June 24, 2022. Id. The document production was not to include any redactions to the consumer reports, including all previous consumer reports Defendant Kentech had produced between May 13, 2022 and June 22, 2022. Id.

Despite this third production deadline, Defendant Kentech failed to meet the June 24, 2022 deadline. (ECF No. 89.) Instead, on June 25, 2022, Defendant Kentech produced 7,223 unredacted consumer reports and took the position that the correct number of responsive consumer reports is actually 9,207 not 13,199. Id. at 2:23-3:9. Defendant Kentech represented this error was discovered through obtaining, downloading, and physically reviewing the reports, and the remaining 1,983 consumer reports would be produced by July 1, 2022. Id.

Whether the correct number of responsive consumer reports was 9,207 or 13,199, Defendant Kentech clearly failed to produce all responsive documents by the Court's deadline of June 24, 2022. Even if the correct number of responsive documents was 9,207, as of June 25, 2022 there were at least 1,983 consumer reports not yet produced.

Setting aside Defendant Kentech's arguments that the April 27, 2022 deadline was a “target deadline”, the record clearly demonstrates Defendant Kentech failed to meet the June 17, 2022 and June 24, 2022 deadlines – dates ordered by the Court and nearly two months after Defendant Kentech's own proposed target deadline. Thus, Defendant Kentech clearly failed to comply with the Court's orders and sanctions under Rule 37(a) and (b) are appropriate.

D. Whether Defendant's Position was Substantially Justified or Other Circumstances Make An Award of Fees Unjust

*12 Central to the Court's sanctions analysis is whether Defendant Kentech's failure to obey the Court's orders “was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). “[T]he burden of showing substantial justification and special circumstances is on the party being sanctioned.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.1994). The Court does not find Defendant Kentech has made an adequate showing that substantial justification or other circumstances exists to render an award of sanctions unjust.

Defendant Kentech's argument that sanctions are not warranted centers on two reasons: (1) the delay in document production was not made in bad faith and (2) sanctions are only permissible in the Ninth Circuit under “ ‘extreme circumstances’ ” and where the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or the fault of the party”. (ECF No 98, 12:14-25.)

Defendant Kentech's first argument that Defendant Kentech and the task personnel made a good faith effort between May 11, 2022 and June 30, 2022 and the production, although delayed, was completed by July 1, 2022 is not availing. A good faith effort to comply does not negate non-compliance. North Am. Watch Corp. v. Princess Ermine Jewels, 786 F.2d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir.1986) (citing to Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (per curiam) (belated compliance with discovery orders does not preclude the imposition of sanctions). “Last-minute tender of documents does not cure the prejudice to opponents nor does it restore to other litigants on a crowded docket the opportunity to use the courts.” G–K Props. v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, 577 F.2d 645, 647–48 (9th Cir.1978). Even though Defendant Kentech produced the 9,207 consumer reports by July 1, 2022, it is clear Defendant failed to comply with the Court's June 24, 2022 deadline. Notwithstanding counsel's inadvertent mistake of falling asleep before sending the production on June 24, 2022, as of June 25, 2022 Defendant Kentech had only produced 7,223 of the 9,207 unredacted consumer reports.

Defendant's second argument, that sanctions are only appropriate in instances of willful and bad faith conduct is also unavailing. In support of this argument, Defendant Kentech relied upon Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905-906 (9th Cir. 2002). While the Court in Fair Housing does provide that in the Ninth Circuit “sanctions are appropriate only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party’ ” the holding of Fair Housing does not support Defendant Kentech's argument that sanctions under Rule 37 are inappropriate in this instance. See Fair Hous. of Marin, 285 F.3d at 905-906. In Fair Housing, the Ninth Circuit's focus was on whether the district court's sanction of striking the defendant's answer and entering default judgment against the defendant due to failure to comply with discovery production was an abuse of discretion. Id. In ruling that the district court had not abused its discretion, the Ninth Circuit looked to the underlying record which demonstrated the defendant clearly failed to produce documents as ordered. Id.

The Court also is not aware of any other circumstances which would make an award of fees unjust. As demonstrated by the multiple deadlines and status conferences set by the Court, Defendant Kentech was given ample time and opportunity to produce the consumer reports. The initial discovery dispute was raised on March 2, 2022 and the compromise fashioned by the Court occurred on March 24, 2022. Yet, the final production of all 9,207 consumer reports was not produced until July 1, 2022 – four months later. The straightforwardness of the production obligation was further demonstrated by the fact Plaintiff had agreed to take on the laboring oar of reviewing all of the consumer reports to determine relevancy and responsiveness to Plaintiff's SROGs No. 21, 22, and RFPs No. 28 and 29. Defendant Kentech's sole task was to produce the documents. It had no obligation to review them before production.

*13 Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find the “substantially justified” or “other circumstances” exceptions of Rule 37(b)(2)(C) apply.

E. Plaintiff's Requests for Attorney's Fees

Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion requests the Court order Defendant Kentch to compensate Plaintiff's counsel for attorney's fees which Plaintiff argues it incurred between March 29, 2022 and the resolution of this discovery dispute. (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff's lead counsel, Devin H. Fok, seeks attorney's fees compensated at a rate of $650.00 per hour. (ECF No. 97 at 2:3-5.) Mr. Fok's associate, Ainat Kiewe, seeks attorney's fees compensated at a rate of $450 per hour. Id. at 2:5-6. Plaintiff's counsel's co-counsel, Joseph Lee, seeks attorney's fees compensated at a rate of $450.00 per hour until January 2022 and $500.00 per hour for work beginning February 2022. Id. at 2:8-11.

Based upon Plaintiff's counsel's representations at the OSC Hearing to limit the sanctions request to fees incurred after March 29, 2022[2] and the Court's review of Plaintiff's billing records, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney's fees totaling $15,410.00. Separated per firm, Plaintiff requests $4,510.00 for fees incurred by DHF Law, P.C., composed of Mr. Fok and Ms. Kiewe; and $10,900.00 in fees incurred by The Law Office of Joseph Lee. See ECF No. 97, 97-1, 97-2.

Defendant Kentech contends the Court should reduce the fees amount to $2,840.00 for 7.1 hours spent in connection with the timing of Defendant Kentech's production of the consumer reports. (ECF No. 98 at 11-12.)

i. Reasonableness of the Fees Sought

“When the district court makes its award, it must explain how it came up with the amount. The explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible.” Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008).

Reasonable attorney fees are calculated based on the lodestar method, which requires the Court to “multiply[ ] the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). See also Kirschner v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-CV-01712-LAB-JLB, 2021 WL 2633592, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2021) citing to Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1110 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)); Allergan USA, Inc. v. Prescriber's Choice, Inc., No. SACV1701550DOCJDEX, 2018 WL 4745303, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2018) (explaining that the lodestar method is generally used to calculate attorney fees for the purpose of Rule 37(a)(5) fee-shifting sanctions); Collinge v. IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc., No. 2:12-0824 JWS, 2014 WL 2569157, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2014) (same).

*14 To determine the reasonable hourly rate, the Court looks to the “rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 989 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The burden is on the party requesting attorney fees to produce “satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.” Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987); see Roberts v. City & County of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (“It is the responsibility of the attorney seeking fees to submit evidence to support the requested hourly rate”). Evidence that the Court should consider includes “[a]ffidavits of the [movant's] attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the [movant's] attorney.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). A court can consider other factors, including its own knowledge of the relevant legal market, the complexity of the legal issues at stake, and the reputation and experience of counsel. See FlowRider Surf, Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN-BLM, 2020 WL 5645331, at *3–*4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020); 569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc., 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 304, 314 (Ct. App. 2016).

Because neither party submitted any declarations or legal support addressing their calculation for the appropriate hourly rates for attorneys in the Southern District of California (see ECF No. 97, 98), the court will look to recent decisions to determine whether the rates requested by plaintiff's counsel are supported. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[R]ate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.”).

In 2021, this District found an hourly rate of $575.00 per hour reasonable for an attorney who had been practicing for over twenty-two years with nineteen in consumer protection law, and an hourly rate of $375.00 per hour to be reasonable for an attorney practicing six years in consumer protection practices. Buchannon v. Associated Credited Serv., Inc.. No 20-cv-2245-BEN-LL, 2021 WL 5360971 at *15-16 (S.D. Cal. No. 17, 2021); see also Puccio v. Love, Case No. 16-cv-02890 W (BGS), 2020 WL 434481 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020) (finding hourly rate of $500.00 per hour reasonable for an attorney who practiced for thirty-six years in debt collection practices); G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Parker, No. 20-cv-00801-BEN-RBB, 2021 WL 164998 at *4 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (holding that an hourly rate of $650.00 per hour was reasonable for a partner with twenty-five years of experience in consumer UCL and class action claims).

Based on the Court's knowledge of counsel's experience and rates for attorneys practicing in a similar area of law within the Southern District of California, the Court finds an hourly rate of $650.00 for Mr. Fok, $500.00 for Mr. Lee, and $450.00 for Ms. Kiewe to be reasonable for an attorney in the community working in this type of action.

In calculating the number of reasonable hours to include in the lodestar, the Court may award fees under Rule 37(a)(5) only for time expended “in actually preparing the moving papers[.]” Shaw v. Ultimate Franchises, No. 81802273JLSADSX, 2020 WL 5539963, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020). Under Rule 37 “hours actually expended in the litigation are not to be disallowed without a supporting rationale.” Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., 2021 WL 5449041, at *12–14 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021) (citing Shaw v. Ultimate Franchises, 2020 WL 5539963, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) and United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). “Only in rare or exceptional cases will an attorney's reasonable expenditure of time on a case not be commensurate with the fees to which he is entitled.” Cunningham v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 488 (9th Cir. 1988).

*15 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) limits the amount of recoverable fees and expenses to those directly related to, or “caused by,” the discovery misconduct. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 n.5 (2017). Additionally, although Plaintiff bears the initial burden of documenting its reasonable hours and submitting evidence in support, Defendant Kentech bears “a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397–98 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). At all times, the Court “has a great deal of discretion in determining the reasonableness of the fee[,]” including “the reasonableness of the hours claimed by the prevailing party.” Id. at 1398.

Here, Plaintiff seeks attorney's fee totaling to the amount of $15,410.00, based on 28.8 hours collectively billed by Mr. Fok, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Kiewe. This amount is based upon 23.8 hours collectively billed by all three attorneys between March 29, 2022 and August 14, 2022, and 2.5 hours separately billed for Mr. Fok and Mr. Lee's time incurred for travel to and from the in-person OSC Hearing and appearance at the in-person OSC Hearing. (ECF No. 97.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests 6.8 total hours billed by Mr. Fok, 0.2 total hours billed by Ms. Kiewe, and 21.8 total hours billed by Mr. Lee. See ECF No. 97, 97-1, 97-2.

Plaintiff counsel contends these hours related to meet and confer efforts with Defendant Kentech to obtain the document production, preparing Joint Status Reports and appearances at Joint Status Conferences, preparing and responding to the Court's OSC, preparing for and attending the OSC Hearing; and preparing supporting documents related to Plaintiff's counsel's billing. (ECF No. 97.)

Defendant Kentech contends the hours requested are excessive and no more than 7.1 hours were reasonably related to the delayed production, preparing of Joint Status Reports, and appearances at Joint Status Conferences. (ECF No. 98 at 11-12.) Defendant Kentech contends that Mr. Fok and Mr. Lee's hours should be reduced because the redundancy of two attorneys appearing for almost every status conference on behalf of Plaintiff was unnecessary and only occurred because of Plaintiff's counsel's poor decision litigation strategy. Id. at 10.

Regarding the use of multiple attorneys, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “ ‘the participation of more than one attorney does not necessarily constitute an unnecessary duplication of effort.’ ” McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1435 n.9 (9th Cir. 1989)). Instead, “[a] reduction of fees is warranted only if the attorneys are unreasonably doing the same work. An award for time spent by two or more attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation.” Johnson v. Univ. College, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir.1983); see Probe v. State Teachers' Ret. Sys., 780 F.2d 776, 785 (9th Cir.1986).

Thus, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff should have been limited to one attorney per appearance. See, e.g., Hammett v. Sherman, No. 19cv605-JLS-AHG, 2020 WL 1332591, at *26, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49793, at *82 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020) (approving anti-SLAPP fees for two partners with over 30 years of experience); Zwebner, 2006 WL 8455423, at *3 n.2 (noting approval of the use of five attorneys in anti-SLAPP case).

The Court recognizes the value of coordination between co-counsel. Here, Defendant Kentech points out examples of internal communications between Plaintiff's co-counsel, totaling approximately 5.4 hours. ECF No. 98 at 10. Having reviewed the time records, the Court finds no basis for concluding Mr. Fok's review of the file and revisions to status reports or filings was duplicative of Mr. Lee's work. With respect to Mr. Lee's billing entries reflecting communications with Mr. Fok, the Court's review of the billing records demonstrates Mr. Fok did not bill for reviewing communications from Mr. Lee, thus the entries were not duplicative.

*16 Next, several timekeeping entries reflect what the Court finds to be overly broad and vague entries, affecting the Court's ability to assess the reasonableness and relation of hours worked to Defendant Kentech's document production. Specifically, the Court finds the following time keeping entries are overly vague and overbroad: (1) Ms. Kiewe's entry on June 15, 2022 of 0.2 hours for “Email from co-counsel re outstanding discovery”; (2) Mr. Lee's entry on June 15, 2022 of 0.1 for “Review response email from co-counsel re discovery”; and (3) Mr. Lee's entry on June 28, 2022 of 0.1 for “Review email from Kentech's counsel.

Given these entries, the Court deducts 0.4 hours for overly broad and vague entries reflecting Ms. Kiewe and Mr. Lee's work between March 29, 2022 and August 14, 2022.

The Court also finds several billing entries related to the drafting of Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion to be duplicative. See ECF No. 97-1. Mr. Lee's billing entries between July 9, 2022 and July 10, 2022 reflect six entries related to “Continue to draft Plaintiff's Reply to Kentech's Response to OSC” amounting to 6.9 hours. Id. Mr. Lee's billing entries also reflect an entry on July 9, 2022 that states “Begin draft Plaintiff's Reply to Kentech's Response to OSC” and an entry on July 10, 2022 that states “Draft Plaintiff's Reply to Kentech's Response to OSC”. Id. In total, Mr. Lee billed 8.8 hours to drafting Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion, however the Court's review of the motion demonstrates the majority of the motion reflects the same information previously provided in the Parties' past four Joint Status Reports. Cf. ECF No. 97 and No. 82, 84, 86, and 88.

Based on the above, the Court does not find the 8.8 hours billed to Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion to be reasonable and deducts 4.4 hours for time spent drafting on Plaintiff's Sanction's Motion.

iv. Total Reasonable Hours Billed

In total, the Court deducts 4.6 hours from Mr. Lee's timekeeping entries, and .02 from Ms. Kiewe's timekeeping entries. Computing these deductions with the 28.8 hours collectively billed by Mr. Fok, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Kiewe, the Court finds Plaintiff's total reasonable hours billed to efforts to obtain Defendant Kentech's production of the consumer reports in light of the Court's orders to produce such documents to amounts to 24 hours.

v. Summary

Based upon the above, the Court finds it appropriate to award $13,120.00 to Plaintiff's counsel.

Specifically, the Court awards $4,420.00 for fees incurred by DHF Law, P.C., composed of 6.8 hours billed by Mr. Fok at a rate of $650.00; and $8,700.00 in fees incurred by The Law Office of Joseph Lee composed of 17.4 hours billed by Mr. Lee at an hourly rate of $500.00.

F. Other Sanctions Requested

With respect to Plaintiff's requests raised at the OSC Hearing for evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Kentech related to this dispute, the Court declines to make a recommendation for evidentiary sanctions.

As to Plaintiff's Sanction's Motion's request to extend the Amended Scheduling Order by ninety days, this request is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Court's Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 102) and Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Joint Motion for Continuance of Trial and Upcoming Deadlines (ECF No. 146).

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Sanction Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.