Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD, Case No. 24-cv-01278-TSH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. SANCTIONS AND GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 10 SABER FITNESS HEGENBERGER, LLC, DEADLINE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 101 — 12 — 13 Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd moves for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 37, including monetary sanctions, evidence exclusion, and entry of default judgment against 15 Defendant Saber Fitness Hegenberger LLC, based on Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with 16 its discovery obligations. ECF No. 92. 17 Plaintiff argues sanctions are necessary in part because this case was filed in state court 18 almost two years ago, yet “none of [his] discovery requests have been adequately answered.” 19 Mot. at 1-2. However, after Defendant removed the case to this Court on March 1, 2024, no case 20 management order was issued until December 6, after the Court addressed several rounds of 21 motions, including Plaintiff’s motion to remand and Defendant’s motions to dismiss. See ECF 22 Nos. 13, 15, 39, 44, 51, 53, 56, 59. After that, Plaintiff served written discovery on January 6, 23 2025. Tran Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 102-1. Plaintiff propounded a second request for production of 24 documents on January 26. Id. ¶ 7. The parties subsequently met and conferred and filed letter 25 briefs regarding their disputes. ECF No. 78, 82, 88-89, 91. It was not until April 3 that the Court 26 first ordered Defendant to provide supplemental responses to certain interrogatories. ECF No. 90. 27 On April 4 the Court ordered Defendant to provide supplemental responses to other interrogatories 1 raised in the letters. ECF No. 94. Despite this, Plaintiff filed his motion for sanctions on April 3, 2 || the same day the Court filed its first discovery order and before Defendant had an opportunity to 3 supplement its responses. In the meantime, the record shows Defendant provided supplemental 4 || responses on April 4 and has affirmed its intention to serve additional responses in compliance 5 || with the Court’s orders by April 18. Mot. at 5; Decl. Tran §] 12. The Court has also ordered the 6 || parties to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s compliance with these orders and file an updated 7 || report by April 30. ECF Nos. 103-04. Given the absence of a court order compelling discovery 8 || prior to Plaintiff's motion, and Defendant’s continued supplementation of its responses in 9 || compliance with the Court’s orders, the Court finds sanctions are unwarranted at this time. See 10 || Porter v. Martinez, 941 F.2d 732, 733 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Dismissal under Rule 37(b) is appropriate 11 only for failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery.”); R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. 12 of Penn., 673 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[E]vidence exclusion is, or at least can be, a harsh 5 13 sanction.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. 14 Plaintiff also requests the Court extend the fact discovery until June 2, 2025. ECF No. 3 15 101. Defendant does not oppose the request. ECF No. 102. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS a 16 || Plaintiff's request and EXTENDS the fact discovery deadline to June 2, 2025. If either or both 3 17 parties seek an extension of any other case management deadlines, they shall meet and confer and S 18 then file either a stipulation and proposed order or joint letter with competing deadlines. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. — 20 — 21 Dated: April 29, 2025 22 7 LU \ - joy □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 23 United States Magistrate Judge — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —