*1 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Walla Walla Carpet One's Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions. ECF No. 43. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. Plaintiff has filed no response, timely or otherwise. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files herein and is fully informed.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has a duty to cooperate and comply with the discovery process. Under Rule 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery includes “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). However, the Court may limit the extent or frequency of discovery in certain instances, including discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, discovery that a party has already had ample opportunity to obtain, and when the burden of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Thus, the Court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

Under Rule 37, a requesting party may move the court to compel disclosure or discovery required by Rule 26(a) if the party fails to comply with the discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The motion must include certification that the moving party “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with opposing counsel in an effort to obtain discovery before resorting to court action. Id.

Here, Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff's counsel, on many occasions, in an effort to obtain this discovery. This Court finds the circumstances warrant compelling Plaintiff to appropriately respond to Walla Walla Carpet One's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

If the district court grants a party's motion to compel, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) empowers the court to award attorney's fees to the moving party:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, the court's power is limited. The Court must not award payment of fees if (1) the movant did not first confer with the opposing party to obtain the disclosure or discovery before seeking court action, (2) the opposing party's noncompliance was “substantially justified;” or (3) other circumstances make an award of fees “unjust.” Id. at 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).

Here, Plaintiff has delayed discovery for over 5-months and has not responded to Defendant's motion to compel. The Court has fully considered the request and supporting materials. The Court finds the amount of attorney fees to be reasonable and will order Plaintiff to pay those fees to Defendant.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: