*1 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Relief Pursuant to FRCP 37(b)(2)(A) [102] and Motion for Continuance of Trial Due to Other Federal Trial Calendar Conflicts [105]. On April 14, 2023, the undersigned held a telephonic status conference on the pending motions. See Minute Entry and Text-only Order, dated April 14, 2023. The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, written submissions, the record and relevant law finds that Defendants’ Motion for Relief Pursuant to FRCP 37(b)(2)(A) [102] is DENIED in part and rendered MOOT in part, and the Motion for Continuance of Trial Due to Other Federal Trial Calendar Conflicts [105] is DENIED without prejudice, as discussed below.

I. Motion for Relief [102]

Defendants move this Court for relief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court's previous orders regarding discovery. Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not complied with the Court's Orders to produce their overdue discovery responses and provide deposition dates. On January 18, 2023, the undersigned held a status conference with the parties regarding discovery issues. See Minute Entry, dated January 18, 2023. During the conference, “the Court discussed pending motions for extensions and ... ordered [Plaintiff] to respond to written discovery requests by Wednesday, January 25, 2023.” Id. On January 19, 2023, the Court extended the deadlines in this case, including the discovery deadline. See Text-only Order, dated January 19, 2023. A review of the docket reveals that Plaintiffs served their responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production on or about February 6, 2023. See Notices of Service, Doc. Nos. [106] – [119]. The docket also shows that both parties filed Notices to Take Depositions. See Doc. Nos. [122] – [139]; [141] – [144]; and [146].

During the April 14, 2023 status conference, Defendants advised the Court that Plaintiffs failed to meet the Court's deadline of January 25, 2023 for serving responses to Defendants’ written discovery requests, having instead served said responses and provided dates for Plaintiffs’ depositions on February 6, 2023—after the filing of the instant Motion. The Court finds that, as it relates to service of Plaintiff's discovery responses and providing dates for Plaintiffs’ depositions, the discovery dispute has been resolved and is therefore rendered MOOT. However, the issue of sanctions remains.

Defendants assert they are entitled to relief under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), because Plaintiffs’ responses were received after the deadline set forth by the Court. Plaintiffs oppose the imposition of sanctions. Rule 37(b)(2)(A) vests a Court with the authority to impose sanctions if a party fails to obey a discovery order. Such relief includes: