Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures LLC v. Groupon, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 7 LAS VEGAS SKYDIVING ADVENTURES 8 LLC, 9 Plaintiff, 2:18-cv-02342-APG-VCF

10 vs. ORDER

11 GROUPON, INC., MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES [ECF 12 Defendant. NO. 73]; MOTION TO COMPEL 13 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [ECF 14 NO. 74]

15 Before the Court are plaintiff Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures LLC’s motions to compel. (ECF 16 Nos. 73 and 74). The Court denies both motions without prejudice. 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff brings various claims against Groupon, Inc. related to its alleged infringement of 19 plaintiff’s trademark. (See ECF Nos. 1 and 30). During discovery in this case, the Court previously 20 found that the, “attorneys on both sides are unable to effectively communicate or cooperate with each 21 other” and that, “both parties’ attorneys have failed to communicate with each other in good faith, which 22 wastes scarce judicial resources.” (ECF No. 68 at 3). The Court also previously gave, “[c]ounsel for 23 both parties [ ] two weeks to meet and confer in good faith” regarding plaintiff’s prior discovery motion 24 and warned that, “[t]he Court will consider sanctioning both parties’ attorneys if they are unable to meet 25 1 1 and confer in good faith or resolve these issues without the Court’s intervention.” (Id. at 3-4) Counsel 2 then filed a notice with the Court that affirmatively stated that, “[p]ursuant to the Order, the parties 3 agreed to set up a recurring monthly videoconference to discuss the case and any pending discovery 4 issues.” (ECF No. 69 at 2) (emphasis added). The Court adopted the parties’ joint statement and ordered 5 that the parties must meet monthly via videoconference regarding any pending discovery issues. (ECF 6 No. 70 at 2). 7 Plaintiff argues in its motions to compel that after the parties engaged in a series of back and 8 forth emails regarding setting up a telephonic meet-and-confer regarding plaintiff’s concerns about 9 defendant’s written discovery responses; plaintiff alleges that (1) it met and conferred with defendant 10 regarding the issues presented in this motion in November 2020 and (2) that defendant supplemented its 11 responses after the meet and confer; but the plaintiff makes no mention regarding whether (1) it 12 attempted to meet and confer with defendant again after it determined that the supplement was 13 inadequate, or (2) whether it discussed any of its concerns with defendant regarding the supplement in 14 the Court ordered monthly videoconference calls regarding any pending discovery issues. (ECF No. 73 15 at 3). 16 Groupon argues in its response that (1) the parties met and conferred regarding the issues 17 presented in these motions in November 2020; (2) that Groupon supplemented its responses a little over 18 a week later in direct response to all of plaintiff’s stated concerns; (3) that plaintiff never attempted to 19 meet and confer again regarding the adequacy of Groupon’s supplemented responses; and (4) plaintiff 20 waited until over a month after it received Groupon’s supplement and filed the instant motions on the 21 last day of discovery with no prior warning or discussion. (ECF No. 75 at 4). In plaintiff’s ten-page 22 reply, it does not address its failure to meet and confer with Groupon regarding the supplemented 23 responses prior to filing these motions, or whether it has complied with the Court’s order regarding 24 meeting with Groupon via videoconference every month regarding any discovery issues. (ECF No. 76). 25 2 1 II. Discussion 2 “It is well recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to administer its docket 3 in a manner that conserves scarce judicial resources and promotes the efficient and comprehensive 4 disposition of cases.” M.C. Prods., Inc. v. AT&T (In re M.C. Prods., Inc.), No. 98-56964, 1999 U.S. 5 App. LEXIS 34116, at 2 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 1999) (citations omitted). “Discovery motions will not be 6 considered unless the movant…has made a good faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1- 7 3(f) before filing the motion.” LR 26-6(c). "The district court has wide discretion in controlling 8 discovery." Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The federal rules of civil 9 procedure, “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the 10 just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” FRCP 1 (emphasis added). 11 Under its inherent power, a court may assess attorney's fees or other sanctions for the willful 12 disobedience of a court order. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 13 2d 27 (1991). A court's inherent powers “are governed not by rule or statute but by the control 14 necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 15 disposition of cases.” Id. at 43. Pursuant to Local Rule IA 11-8, “[t]he Court may, after notice and 16 opportunity to be heard, impose any and all appropriate sanctions on an attorney or party who, without 17 just cause…(c) Fails to comply with these Rules; or (d) Fails to comply with any order of this Court.” 18 The Court finds that plaintiff failed to meet and confer regarding Groupon’s supplement prior to 19 filing the instant motions and failed to comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF Nos. 68 and 70). The fact 20 that plaintiff waited over a month after receiving defendant’s discovery supplement to file the instant 21 motions suggests that the parties did not hold monthly meet-and-confer videoconferences as ordered. 22 (ECF Nos. 68 and 70). 23 // 24 // 25 3 1 Counsel for both parties have until Friday, February 19, 2021 to: 2 1) Meet and confer in good faith via videoconference regarding Groupon’s discovery 3 supplements, the issues presented in this motion, and any other discovery issues that the 4 parties foresee arising from the ongoing depositions. 5 2) Provide any agreed upon discovery supplements to opposing counsel; and 6 3) File a joint response with the Court that: 7 a. Informs the Court whether the parties have resolved all the remaining discovery 8 issues. 9 b. Outlines any remaining or anticipated discovery disputes, if any, including each 10 party’s positions. 11 c. Informs the Court whether the parties’ counsel have been meeting via 12 videoconference each month, including the dates the parties have done so, to 13 discuss any discovery issues per the Court’s order. (ECF No. 70). 14 d. Shows cause why the parties’ respective counsel should not be sanctioned for 15 failing to comply with the Court’s orders, including each party’s counsel’s 16 positions. 17 e. Informs the Court whether it should hold a hearing regarding any remaining/ 18 anticipated discovery disputes and whether the Court should hold a show cause 19 hearing regarding potential sanctions. 20 Should the parties’ fail to file a response as ordered the Court may impose sanctions against the 21 parties’ counsel. 22 ACCORDINGLY, 23 IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures LLC’s motion to compel 24 defendant’s responses to interrogatories (ECF NO. 73) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 25 4 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel defendant’s responses to requests 2 || for production of documents (ECF NO. 74) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file a joint response, as detailed in this order, 4 || by Friday, February 19, 2021. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED this 29th day of January 2021.

CAMFERENBACH 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25