Cadles of West Virginia, LLC v. Alvarez

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-2534-TWR-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SANCTIONING 13 v. DEFENDANTS GEORGE ALVAREZ, MARIO ALVAREZ, 14 ALVAREZ et al., DARCI ALVAREZ, MAGALI 15 Defendants. ALVAREZ, AND ATTORNEY MARK C. FIELDS 16 17 [ECF Nos. 70, 72] 18 19 On July 26, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) requiring 20 Defendants George Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, Darci Alvarez, and Magali Alvarez (herein 21 after collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and Defendants’ counsel, Mark C. Fields 22 (“Mr. Fields”) to explain why sanctions should not be imposed against them for their failure 23 to comply with a June 21, 2022 Court Order requiring Defendants to produce documents 24 by July 12, 2022 (“June 21, 2022 Order”). (ECF No. 70.) 25 Having reviewed and considered the record, the Parties’ briefing, and the oral 26 arguments asserted by Counsel at the August 23, 2022 OSC Hearing (“OSC Hearing”), the 27 Court hereby ORDERS monetary sanctions to be paid by Defendants and Mr. Fields, 28 jointly and severally, for their failure to comply with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff Cadles of West Virginia, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) served 3 Request for Production (“RFP”) of Documents on Defendants, seeking the production of 4 complete copies of all passports issued to Defendants since December 2007. (ECF No. 72, 5 Exhibit A, ¶ 3.) After Plaintiff’s counsel granted several extensions, Defendants untimely 6 provided their response to the RFPs which included objections to the production of the 7 passports. Id. at ¶ 4. 8 On June 21, 2022, the Parties jointly called this Court’s chambers to raise four 9 discovery disputes pertaining to Plaintiff’s RFP. (ECF No. 67.) The Court then convened 10 a Joint Discovery Conference to discuss the four discovery disputes, including the dispute 11 leading to the Court’s June 26, 2022 OSC. (ECF Nos. 67, 70.) Plaintiff’s counsel Assly 12 Sayyar (“Ms. Sayyar”) appeared for Plaintiff. Mr. Fields appeared for Defendants Nicholas 13 Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, George Alvarez, Darci Alvarez, and Magali Alvarez. (ECF No. 14 67.) 15 Later that day, the Court issued an order mandating Defendants to produce the 16 current passports of Defendants Darci Alvarez, George Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, and 17 Magali Alvarez, as well as any prior passports in Defendants’ possession for the time frame 18 of 2007 to the present. (June 21, 2022 Order, ECF No. 67.) If Defendants were no longer 19 in possession of any prior passports or prior passports did not exist, Defendants were 20 obligated to submit sworn declarations indicating such. Id. The Court set a deadline of July 21 12, 2022 for the production of the passports and declarations, consistent with the Court’s 22 discussion with Ms. Sayyar and Mr. Fields during the discovery conference. Id. 23 On July 22, 2022, counsel for the Parties jointly contacted this Court’s chambers 24 regarding the state of Defendants’ production of passports and declarations. (ECF No. 70 25 at 2.) 26 On July 26, 2022, the Court convened a Joint Discovery Conference to discuss the 27 dispute raised on July 22, 2022. (ECF No. 70 at 2.) Ms. Sayyar appeared for Plaintiff. Id. 28 Mr. Fields appeared for Defendants. Id. During this conference, Ms. Sayyar reported 1 Defendants had not complied with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order. Ms. Sayyar 2 represented the following events occurred after the June 21, 2022 Discovery Conference: 3 1. On July 12, 2022, Ms. Sayyar received an email with attachments in .jpeg format 4 containing some portions of Defendant George Alvarez’s passport. The email also 5 contained some pages of Defendant Mario Alvarez’s passport. The email did not 6 contain any pages of passports for Defendants Magali Alvarez or Darci Alvarez. 7 (ECF No. 72 at 15, ¶7.) 8 2. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Fields emailed some but not all pages of Defendant George 9 Alvarez’s passport and his declaration, some but not all pages of Defendant Mario 10 Alvarez’s passport and his declaration, and some but not all pages of Defendant 11 Darci Alvarez’s passport and her declaration. (ECF No. 72 at 15, ¶¶ 9, 10.) 12 3. Between July 15, 2022 and July 22, 2022, Ms. Sayyar attempted to meet and confer 13 with Mr. Fields in an effort to informally obtain each Defendants’ full passport and 14 related declarations. (ECF No. 72 at 15-16, ¶¶ 11-13.) 15 4. On July 22, 2022, Ms. Sayyar and Mr. Fields met and conferred telephonically 16 regarding the passport and declaration production. Unable to resolve the issue, both 17 attorneys called Judge Gallo’s chambers and jointly left a voicemail. (ECF No. 72 18 at 16, ¶¶ 13,14.) 19 5. On July 25, 2022, Ms. Sayyar received: all pages of Defendant George Alvarez, 20 Mario Alvarez, and Darci Alvarez’s current passports. Mr. Fields also represented 21 he would have to make further arrangements to obtain Defendant Magali Alvarez’ 22 passport and would produce her current passport and declaration by August 1, 2022. 23 (ECF No. 72 at 16, ¶15.) 24 In response, Mr. Fields argued he had substantially complied with the June 21, 2022 25 Order as he had produced copies of the stamped portions of Defendants George Alvarez 26 and Mario Alvarez’s passports on July 12, 2022, and had produced full and complete copies 27 of the current passports and accompanying declarations for Defendants Darci Alvarez, 28 George Alvarez, and Mario Alvarez on July 25, 2022. (See ECF No. 70 at 2:8-15.) Mr. 1 Fields represented Defendant Magali Alvarez had not produced any passports or 2 declarations as he had faced difficulty obtaining the documents due to Defendant Magali 3 Alvarez’s age, lack of technical support, and residence in Miami Beach, Florida. See id. at 4 2:15-17. 5 On July 26, 2022, the Court issued an OSC requiring Mr. Fields and Defendants to 6 explain why sanctions should not issue for their failure to comply with the Court’s June 7 21, 2022 Order and the July 12, 2022 deadline. (ECF No. 70.) The Court set a deadline of 8 August 2, 2022, for Mr. Fields and Defendants to respond to the OSC. Id. at 2. The Court 9 also set a deadline of August 9, 2022 for Plaintiff to file a Response to Defendants’ 10 Response to the OSC, and a deadline of August 16, 2022 for Defendants’ Reply Brief. Id. 11 at 3. 12 On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed a Response to the OSC (hereinafter referred 13 to as “Plaintiff’s Sanctions Motion”) requesting the Court issue sanctions against 14 Defendants and Mr. Fields. (ECF No. 72.) 15 On August 7, 2022, Mr. Fields untimely filed his declaration regarding the OSC 16 (hereinafter referred to as “Fields Declaration”) and on August 8, 2022, Defendants 17 untimely filed their Response to the OSC (hereinafter referred to as “Response to OSC”). 18 (ECF Nos. 73, 74.) 19 On August 19, 2022, Mr. Fields and Defendants untimely filed a Declaration re OSC 20 in lieu of a Reply Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s Sanctions Motion (hereinafter referred to 21 as “Reply Declaration”). (ECF No. 77.) 22 On August 23, 2022, the Court convened an OSC Hearing. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff’s 23 representative Nate Svette and Ms. Sayyar appeared. Id. Defendants and Mr. Fields also 24 appeared. Id. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 1. Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 4 Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs a party’s failure to cooperate 5 in discovery. Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides: “[i]f a party ... fails to obey an order to provide 6 or permit discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.” 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a party’s failure to obey a 8 discovery order requires the court to “order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that 9 party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the 10 failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award 11 of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 12 2. Sanction’s Under the Court’s Inherent Power 13 A district court has the inherent power “to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve 14 the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 15 630–31 (1962). Civil Local Rule 83.1(a) provides that the district court has the discretion 16 to impose “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power 17 of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding 18 of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser 19 sanctions,” for the failure of counsel, or of any party, to comply with the Court’s Local 20 Rules, with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with any order of the court. 21 See CivLR 83.1(a). 22 The Court’s authority to award sanctions is broad and contemplates a range as Rule 23 37 “authorizes the district court, in its discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when 24 a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery or with court orders enforcing those 25 rules.” Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1052 26 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2015) citing Johnson v. Sisodia, 2015 WL 1746553, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Apr. 27 16, 2015); citing Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus. Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.1983) (citing 28 Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643(1976)). “The decision 1 whether to penalize a party for dilatory conduct during discovery proceedings is committed 2 to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Bollow v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of San Francisco, 650 3 F.2d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 1981) referencing Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) (4); e. g., Marquis v. 4 Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 640 (9th Cir. 1978). “[B]y the very nature of its language, 5 sanctions imposed under Rule 37 must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” 6 Popescu v. City of San Diego, 2017 WL 747940, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (citing 7 O’Connell v. Fernandez–Pol, 542 Fed.Appx. 546, 547-48 (9th Cir. 2013) and Craig v. Far 8 West Eng’g Co., 265 F.2d 251, 260 (9th Cir. 1959).) 9 B. Noncompliance with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order 10 1. Defendants’ Failure to Produce Passports and Declarations By July 12, 2022 11 The Court’s June 21, 2022 Order set forth a clear deadline of July 12, 2022 for all 12 four Defendants to produce copies of their current passports and any prior passports in 13 Defendants’ possession for the time frame of 2007 to present. (ECF No. 67.) If any 14 Defendants were no longer in possession of prior passports, they were required to submit 15 a sworn declaration indicating such. Id. All copies of each Defendants’ current passport, 16 prior passport, and applicable declaration were due no later than July 12, 2022. Id. 17 Plaintiff argues Defendants’ failure to comply with this deadline is indicative of 18 Defendants’ disregard for their discovery obligations and the Court’s order. (Pl.’s Sanction 19 Motion, ECF No. 72 at 3, 7-8.) Defendants argue although full compliance was late, it did 20 occur. (ECF No. 74 at 2:21-22.) Specifically, at the July 26, 2022 Discovery Conference 21 Mr. Fields argued even if Plaintiff took issue with the quality of the copies produced for 22 Defendants George Alvarez and Mario Alvarez, substantial portions of these passports 23 were in fact produced by July 12, 2022. Mr. Fields also argued that by July 25, 2022, 24 Defendants had produced full and complete copies of the current passports and declarations 25 for Defendants Darci Alvarez, George Alvarez, and Mario Alvarez. (See ECF No. 70 at 26 2:8-15.) Since Plaintiff eventually received all copies of the full passports and declarations, 27 Defendants contend the OSC and OSC Hearing were unnecessary, especially if the Court 28 were to consider the volume of discovery previously sought by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 74 at 1 3:2-21.) 2 The Court disagrees with Defendants and Mr. Fields’ characterization of whether 3 any Defendant substantially complied with the June 21, 2022 Order. It is clear no 4 Defendant substantially complied with the July 12, 2022 deadline. A partial production 5 containing only the stamped pages of Defendants George Alvarez and Mario Alvarez’s 6 passports were produced on July 12, 2022. (ECF No. 70 at 2:8-19.) No production of 7 passports or declarations for Defendants Darci Alvarez and Magli occurred on July 12, 8 2022. Id. Three days after the deadline, on July 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel received 9 another partial production containing “some but not all pages” of Defendants George 10 Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, and Darci Alvarez’s passport and their declarations. (ECF No. 72 11 at 15, ¶¶ 9, 10.) 12 Defendants Darci Alvarez, George Alvarez, and Mario Avarez did not complete 13 their full production of current passports and declarations until July 25, 2022 – thirteen 14 days after the deadline. (ECF No. 73 at 5, ¶23.) At the July 26, 2022 Discovery Conference, 15 Defendant Magali Alvarez still had not produced any passports or declarations detailing an 16 absence of passport. (ECF No. 70 at 2:15-17.) Ultimately, Defendant Magali Alvarez’s 17 passport and declaration were not produced until August 2, 2022 – twenty-one days after 18 the deadline. (ECF No. 70 at 2:15-17.) 19 Defendants’ noncompliance with the Court’s July 12, 2022 deadline is further 20 demonstrated by each defendant’s declaration regarding the status of prior passports. 21 Defendant Mario Alvarez’s declaration was signed and executed on July 14, 2022 – two 22 days after the July 12, 2022 deadline. (ECF No. 72 at 19.) Defendant Darci Alvarez’s 23 declaration was signed and executed on July 15, 2022 – three days after the July 12, 2022 24 deadline. (ECF No. 72 at 20.) Defendant George Alvarez’s declaration was signed and 25 executed on July 15, 2022 – three days after the July 12, 2022 deadline. (ECF No. 72 at 26 21.) Defendant Magali Alvarez’s declaration was signed and executed on July 30, 2022 – 27 eighteen days after the July 12, 2022 deadline. (ECF No. 72 at 22.) 28 In fact, Defendants’ Response to OSC itself concedes Defendants did not timely 1 comply with the July 12, 2022 deadline. In the same sentence which Defendants purport 2 sanctions are not warranted, the Response to OSC admits Defendants did not comply with 3 the deadline when it states: “… in light of the full, complete, and massive responses to 4 earlier written discovery request, and the full (albeit slightly delayed) compliance with the 5 June 21, 2022 … .” (ECF No. 74 at 3:26-4:3.) The Response to OSC also states “although 6 full compliance with the June 21, 2022 Order was late, full compliance has been provided.” 7 (ECF No. 74 at 2:21-22) (emphasis added). 8 Defendants clearly failed to substantially comply with the June 21, 2022 Order. 9 Defendants George Alvarez and Mario Alvarez only produced one aspect of the production 10 required by July 12, 2022. (ECF No. 70 at 2:8-19.) There was not a single declaration 11 produced by any defendant by July 12, 2022. An additional thirteen days would pass before 12 for Defendants George Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, and Darci Alvarez fully complied with the 13 Court’s order. (ECF No. 73 at 5, ¶ 23.) Defendant Magali Alvarez’s production was not 14 produced until three weeks after the July 12, 2022 deadline. (ECF No. 70 at 2:15-17.) By 15 any means of calculating dates, the Court is unable to construe the untimely productions of 16 all four Defendants to have substantially complied with the July 12, 2022 deadline. It would 17 require the Court to undergo extensive mental gymnastics to come to the unreasonable 18 conclusion that Defendants had substantially complied with the June 21, 2022 Order. At 19 best, Defendants produced less than a fourth of the documents required by July 12, 2022. 20 Defendants clearly did not comply with the Court’s July 12, 2022 deadline. 21 2. Defendants and Mr. Fields’ Apathy for Complying with the July 12, 2022 22 Deadline 23 Defendants and Mr. Fields not only failed to comply with the July 12, 2022 deadline 24 but their conduct also demonstrated apathy towards deadlines set by the Court. This apathy 25 is particularly revealed by the timeline provided in Defendant Mario Alvarez’s Declaration 26 in Response to OSC. See ECF No. 74 at 8. The declaration states prior to June 21, 2022 27 Defendant Mario Alvarez had already agreed to produce his current passport and any prior 28 passports to Plaintiff. Id. at 8, ¶4. Defendant Mario Alvarez then learned of the Court’s 1 June 21, 2022 Order on July 5, 2022 but still did not provide copies of his existing passport 2 to Mr. Fields until July 11, 2022. Id. at 8, ¶¶ 6, 7. Despite Defendant Mario Alvarez’s 3 knowledge of the Court’s order, he did not provide a declaration to Mr. Fields until July 4 14, 2022. Id. at 8, ¶ 8. Additionally, Mr. Fields obtained copies of the stamped and blank 5 pages of Defendant Mario Alvarez’s passport in PDF format on July 17, 2022 but did not 6 provide them to Plaintiff until July 25, 2022. Id. at 8, ¶ 10. Neither Defendant Mario 7 Alvarez nor Mr. Fields have provided any explanation for why it took eight additional days 8 to provide the full production of Defendant Mario Alvarez’s passport. 9 Apathy was further demonstrated by Mr. Fields and Defendants George Alvarez and 10 Darci Alvarez’s conduct. Mr. Fields was aware of the potential need of a declaration for 11 Defendants George Alvarez on June 21, 2022 yet he did not provide a draft declaration to 12 Defendant George Alvarez until July 14, 2022 – two days after the deadline. (ECF No. 74 13 at 9, ¶ 8.) Defendant Darci Alvarez was aware of her production obligation and the July 14 12, 2022 deadline on July 5, 2022 but she waited until July 14, 2022 to provide copies of 15 the passport to Mr. Fields. (ECF No. 74 at 10, ¶¶ 4, 5.) Once again, no explanation was 16 provided as to why copies of Defendant Darci Alvarez’s passport were not provided to Mr. 17 Fields and Plaintiff before the deadline. (ECF No. 74.) 18 The most glaring example of disregard for the Court’s deadline is shown in 19 Defendant Magali Alvarez’s Declaration in Response to OSC. (ECF No. 74 at 11.) 20 Defendant Magali Alvarez was not informed of her obligation to provide her current and 21 previous passports until July 14, 2022 – two days after the deadline had passed. (ECF No. 22 74 at 11, ¶¶ 3,4.) 23 Defendants’ failure to produce passports and declarations by the July 12, 2022 24 deadline and apathy towards the deadline clearly demonstrates their noncompliance with 25 the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order. 26 C. Noncompliance with the Court’s Order to Show Cause 27 Defendants and Mr. Fields’ indifference towards court deadlines is further 28 compounded by their failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause. 1 On July 26, 2022, the Court issued an OSC requiring Defendants to file briefing no 2 later than August 2, 2022. (ECF No. 70.) Along with Defendants’ briefing, Mr. Fields was 3 ordered to file a declaration thoroughly detailing (1) when he informed his clients of their 4 obligation to produce copies of their current passports and declarations regarding prior 5 passports; (2) all efforts Mr. Fields took to ensure his clients understood their obligation to 6 produce the passports and documents; and (3) all steps Mr. Fields took to aid Defendants 7 in producing the passports and declarations regarding prior passports. Id. at 2-3. 8 The Court also ordered Defendants to file declarations explaining (1) when each 9 individual learned of the Court’s order to produce their passport and declaration regarding 10 prior passports; (2) what steps each individual took to comply with the Court’s order by 11 the deadline of July 12, 2022; (3) when each individual took those steps to comply with 12 the Court’s order; and (4) when each individual provided their passports and executed their 13 declarations regarding the prior passports to Mr. Fields for production. (ECF No. 70 at 3.) 14 The deadline for Mr. Fields and Defendants’ declarations responding to the OSC were due 15 no later than August 2, 2022. Id. at 2-3. 16 Neither Defendants nor Mr. Fields met the August 2, 2022 deadline. On August 7, 17 2022, Mr. Fields filed the Fields Declaration. (ECF No. 73.) On August 8, 2022, 18 Defendants filed their Response to OSC and accompanying declarations detailing their 19 knowledge of the June 21, 2022 Order. (ECF No. 74.) 20 Addressing the untimeliness of his declaration and Defendants’ Response to OSC 21 and declarations, Mr. Fields’ declaration stated he “incorrectly listed August 2, 2022 as the 22 date for Plaintiff’s filing and August 9, 2022 for Defendants’ filings” and misinformed 23 Defendants of the deadlines. (Fields Declaration, ECF No. 73 at 2, ¶ 3.) At the OSC 24 Hearing Mr. Fields reiterated his error and took responsibility for the mistaken dates 25 despite the fact he was in attendance when the Court set the OSC deadlines. While Mr. 26 Fields’ accountability for his mistake is appreciated, the Court is unable to turn a blind eye 27 to this error as Mr. Fields’ own declaration states, “I noticed but did not follow up what I 28 viewed as a surprising development that Plaintiff had not filed any documents on August 1 2, 2022.” (Fields Declaration, ECF No. 73 at 2, ¶ 3.) Mr. Fields’ careless approach to 2 deadlines is further magnified by the fact Defendants did not file a Reply Brief by the 3 August 16, 2022 deadline. Instead, a Reply Declaration in lieu of a Reply Brief was filed 4 on August 19, 2022, after Judge Gallo’s research attorney emailed counsel seeking the 5 brief. (ECF Nos. 70, 77.) 6 Although the Court recognizes mistakes periodically occur during litigation, it 7 cannot excuse the noncompliance which occurred here, particularly in light of Defendants 8 and Mr. Fields’ long history of dilatory conduct detailed below. 9 D. Defendants and Mr. Fields’ History of Dilatory Discovery 10 The persistent lack of urgency shown by Defendants and Mr. Fields throughout this 11 litigation to diligently proceed with their discovery obligations and meet deadlines 12 befuddles the Court. 13 In undertaking its sanctions inquiry, the Court may consider the party’s dilatory and 14 obstructive conduct in the instant action and any related actions. Lowry v. Metropolitan 15 Transit Bd. MTBS, 2013 WL 4046657 *14 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Smith v. Smith, 145 16 F.3d 335, 344 (5th Cir. 1998). “Overall, sanctions imposed under Rule 37 should deter the 17 [disobedient party’s] conduct and remedy any prejudice it caused the [obedient party].” Id.; 18 S. Cal. Stroke Rehab. Assocs. v. Nautilus, 2010 WL 2998839, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 19 2010). 20 Plaintiff argues Defendants’ violation of the June 21, 2022 Order is “part of a larger 21 procedurally documented pattern of discovery delays” and there is no evidence 22 Defendants’ “noncompliance was accidental or forgotten or there was any lack of notice.” 23 (Pl.’s Sanction Motion at 7:13-15, 7:27-8:2.) The Court agrees with this supposition. 24 Setting aside the fact the Response to OSC was filed a week late, Defendants’ 25 Response to OSC also contained examples of other instances when Defendants and Mr. 26 Fields did not meet other deadlines during this litigation. For instance, the Response to 27 OSC and Supplemental Declaration of Mark C. Fields states “Defendants have fully 28 responded (although sometimes a few dates late) to a massive amount of discovery 1 requests.” (ECF No. 74 at 2:28-3:2.) This lackadaisical approach to producing discovery 2 or timely filing documents is not limited to the instant discovery dispute or OSC. 3 This case is riddled by a lengthy history of Defendants’ indifference to discovery 4 deadlines and dawdling approach to discovery. In fact, Defendants’ indifference towards 5 their discovery obligations, particularly with respect to producing documents timely, was 6 made apparent to the Court even before the Case Management Conference (“CMC”). A 7 month before the CMC, the parties jointly contacted this Court’s chambers to raise two 8 discovery disputes. (ECF No. 55.) On February 4, 2022, the Court convened the first of a 9 series of discovery conferences due to Defendants’ failure to appropriately or timely 10 respond to discovery propounded by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 56, 57.) Following the discovery 11 conference, Defendants were ordered to produce documents or provide responses to each 12 category of documents sought by Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 57.) The 13 deadline for subsequent discovery responses or productions was February 25, 2022. Id. 14 On February 28, 2022, the parties jointly contacted this Court’s chambers as 15 Defendants had failed to provide any supplemental discovery by the February 25, 2022 16 deadline. (ECF No. 60.) On March 1, 2022, the Court convened a second discovery 17 conference to discuss Defendants’ ongoing delayed production. (ECF No. 61.) Based on 18 the representations made during this conference, the Court ordered the parties to further 19 meet and confer and lodge directly to chambers a Joint Status Report no later than March 20 4, 2022. (ECF No. 61.) On March 8, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to lodge a second 21 Joint Status Report due by March 11, 2022. (ECF No. 63.) 22 On March 11, 2022, the parties submitted a second Joint Status Report updating the 23 court on the progress of the supplemental discovery and document production. (ECF No. 24 57.) Following this status report, the Court’s March 11, 2022 Order noted Defendants’ 25 continued failure to timely produce documents in accordance with the Court’s February 4, 26 2022 Order. (ECF No. 65.) In fact, the March 11, 2022 Order itself stated: 27 Defendants’ apparent continuous disregard of expeditious prosecution of this matter is not aligned with the spirit of prompt and diligent advocacy related 28 1 to litigation proceedings, bordering on misuse of the discovery process, and prompting the Court to consider whether sanctions are in order. The Court 2 has provided more than ample time for Defendants to produce discovery and 3 for the Parties to resolve these discovery issues. 4 Id. at 1-2. Defendants’ history of delaying document productions prior to the June 21, 2022 5 discovery dispute amplifies their clear disregard for deadlines set by the Court. 6 E. No Exceptions to the Sanction Rules Apply 7 Central to the court’s sanctions analysis is whether the party’s failure to obey an 8 order “was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses 9 unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). “[T]he burden of showing substantial justification and 10 special circumstances is on the party being sanctioned.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 11 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.1994). A finding of bad faith is not required for monetary sanctions 12 under Rule 37. Id. The Court does not find Defendants have made an adequate showing 13 that substantial justification or other circumstances exist to render an award of sanctions 14 unjust in this instance. 15 1. No Apparent Justification for Defendants’ Noncompliance Exists 16 The Court does not find any substantial justification exists to excuse Defendants’ 17 noncompliance with the June 21, 2022 Order. 18 a. Mr. Fields’ Delay in Communicating Discovery Obligation to 19 Defendants Does Not Excuse Non-Compliance with the Deadline 20 Courts have consistently held sanctions may be imposed for negligent failures to 21 produce discovery. Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 1343; See Lew v. Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 22 1427 (9th Cir.1985); Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 642 (9th Cir.1978). 23 In Mr. Fields’ Declaration in Response to OSC, he states: 24 On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 11:30 a.m., I sent an email to George Alvarez, 25 Mario Alvarez, and Ken Hobbs, stating that I had thought I had previously sent to them a list of what Mario Alvarez had agreed to provide voluntarily 26 and a copy of the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order … Prior to July 5, 2022, I had 27 not informed George Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, or Ken Hobbs of the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order, described its terms, or provided them a copy. 28 / / / 1 (ECF No. 73 at 3 ¶ 7.) The Fields Declaration is silent as to any other explanation for why 2 Defendants were not made aware of the June 21, 2022 Order until July 5, 2022 – two weeks 3 after the order was issued. See ECF No. 73. The Reply Declaration is also silent as to any 4 explanation for why Defendants were not provided a copy of the June 21, 2022 Order until 5 July 5, 2022. See ECF No. 77. 6 Although the timing of when Defendants were fully informed of their discovery 7 obligation may have been a contributing factor, it alone is not enough to excuse 8 Defendants’ noncompliance. No explanation was provided for why Defendants George 9 Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, and Darci Alvarez did not provide copies of their full passports 10 and declarations to Mr. Fields or Plaintiff before the July 12, 2022 deadline. See ECF Nos. 11 73, 74, 77. As analyzed above, Defendant Mario Alvarez had already agreed to produce 12 his passport prior to the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order and Defendants George Alvarez and 13 Darci Alvarez had substantial time to comply with the July 12, 2022 deadline when they 14 learned of the June 21, 2022 Order on July 5, 2022. (ECF No. 73 at 5, ¶ 23.) 15 The lack of explanation for further production delays after learning of their discovery 16 obligations leads the Court to surmise as to whether Defendants were negligent or 17 indifferent to the deadlines. No adequate justification was provided in either case. 18 b. Mr. Fields and Defendants Failed to Timely Inform the Court of 19 Issues Related to Production 20 Further, Mr. Fields and Defendants failed to timely inform the Court of issues related 21 to the complete production of passports and declarations. When the Court pressed Mr. 22 Fields about the production delays during the July 26, 2022 Discovery Conference, Mr. 23 Fields stated part of the delay was due to his experiencing issues with producing the 24 passports in a format involving Bates stamps due to changes involving his law firm’s office 25 space and support staff. Rather than raising these issues with the Court before or shortly 26 after the July 12, 2022 deadline, Mr. Fields delayed raising these issues until he was 27 questioned by the Court during a discovery conference two weeks after the deadline. 28 / / / 1 With respect to the production issues related to Defendant Magali Alvarez’s 2 passport, Mr. Fields had multiple opportunities to inform the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel 3 of any such circumstances prior to the July 12, 2022 deadline. Instead, he failed to avail 4 himself and Defendants of those opportunities. Mr. Fields waited until July 15, 2022 to 5 raise these complications with Plaintiff’s counsel (ECF No. 72 at 15, ¶ 11) and once again, 6 the Court first learned of such difficulties at the July 26, 2022 Discovery Conference – two 7 weeks after the production deadline had passed. 8 None of the reasons provided by Mr. Fields to justify the production delays 9 sufficiently explains why Defendants and Mr. Fields delayed in producing a relatively 10 simple set of documents. 11 The “substantially justified” exception of Rule 37(b)(2)(C) does not apply. 12 2. No Other Circumstances Which Would Make an Award of Expenses Unjust 13 The Court is not aware of any other circumstances which would make an award of 14 expenses unjust. Defendants and Mr. Fields were given ample time to produce the passports 15 and declarations. The straightforwardness of the production obligation was further 16 demonstrated by the fact Defendants could submit a declaration indicating no passport was 17 in each Defendants’ possession if that were the circumstance. (ECF No. 67.) Instead, three 18 Defendants did not fully comply until July 25, 2022 – thirteen days after the July 12, 2022 19 deadline. (ECF No. 73 at 5, ¶ 23.) Full compliance for Defendant Magali Alvarez did not 20 occur until August 2, 2022 – three weeks after the July 12, 2022 deadline and forty-two 21 days after the Court ordered production. (ECF No. 70 at 2:15-17.) 22 Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to obtain Defendants’ production of passports and 23 declarations after July 12, 2022 without further Court intervention demonstrates Plaintiff 24 wanted to continue to work cooperatively to obtain the documents despite Defendants’ 25 many failed promises to produce this and other discovery in the past. See Pl.’s Sanctions 26 Motion, ECF No. 72 at 14-16. On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel resorted to jointly 27 contacting the Court only after giving Defendants and Mr. Fields multiple opportunities to 28 fulfill their obligations – including ten additional days to produce the passports and 1 declarations. Id. Aside from arguing Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by the delayed 2 production, Defendants and Mr. Fields have not provided any arguments as to why an 3 award of sanctions would be unjust. (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 77.) 4 Based on the foregoing, awarding payment of expenses to Plaintiff would not be 5 unjust in this case. The Court does not find the “other circumstances” exception in Rule 6 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) to apply. 7 F. Appropriate Sanctions 8 Plaintiff’s Sanctions Motion requests (1) an award of sanctions in the amount of 9 $11,985.38 for reasonable expenses incurred by Plaintiff due to Mr. Fields and Defendants’ 10 non-compliance with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order and (2) an order and formal finding 11 of compensatory civil contempt against Defendants and Mr. Fields. (ECF No. 72 at 10.) 12 When a party fails to comply with a court order, the Rules mandate “the court must 13 order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable 14 expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) 15 (emphasis added). Further, under Rule 37(b), sanctions are permissible when a party fails 16 to comply with a court order regardless of the reasons. Societe Internationale Pour 17 Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 208 (1958) 18 (“Whatever its reasons, petitioner did not comply with the production order. Such reasons, 19 and the willfulness or good faith of petitioner, can hardly affect the fact of noncompliance 20 … .”). Indeed, sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) may be imposed for negligent conduct. 21 Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) (“We have 22 consistently held that sanctions may be imposed for negligent failures to provide 23 discovery.”); David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 420 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[I]n view of the 24 possibility of light sanctions, even a negligent failure [to obey an order] should come within 25 [Rule 37(b)].”). 26 As Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order, the Court 27 finds it appropriate to order payment of expenses to Plaintiff by Defendants and Mr. Fields, 28 jointly and severally, but not to the extent requested. The Court also orders reporting of 1 sanctions against Mr. Fields to the State Bar of California. The Court does not find an order 2 of civil contempt against Defendants and Mr. Fields to be appropriate. 3 1. Plaintiff’s Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Expenses 4 In the Ninth Circuit, a district court determines a reasonable fee award first by 5 “calculating the lodestar amount, which is the ‘number of hours reasonably expended on 6 the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.’ ” Kirschner v. J.P. Morgan Chase 7 Bank, N.A., No. 20-CV-01712-LAB-JLB, 2021 WL 2633592, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 8 2021) citing to Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1110 (9th Cir. 2014) 9 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Under Rule 37 “hours actually 10 expended in the litigation are not to be disallowed without a supporting rationale.” 11 Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., 2021 WL 5449041, at *12–14 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12 19, 2021) (citing Shaw v. Ultimate Franchises, 2020 WL 5539963, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13 25, 2020) and United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th 14 Cir. 1990). At all times, the Court “has a great deal of discretion in determining the 15 reasonableness of the fee[,]” including “the reasonableness of the hours claimed by the 16 prevailing party.” Id.; Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 As a preliminary matter, during the OSC Hearing the Court provided Defendants an 18 opportunity to address the accuracy and reasonableness of expenses Plaintiff allegedly 19 incurred after July 12, 2022 related to Defendants’ noncompliance with the June 21, 2022 20 Order. Mr. Fields stated Defendants did not dispute the accuracy of Plaintiff’s counsel’s 21 billing entries submitted to the Court. 22 Plaintiff counsel’s itemized billing statements1 reflect a total of $6,840 in fees 23 incurred between July 12, 2022 and August 5, 2022 Plaintiff asserts are related to meet and 24 25 1 Plaintiff has provided billing statements which the Court has reviewed. Plaintiff’s 26 attorneys’ billing rates, hours expended and costs to pursue the discovery and these 27 sanctions are all reasonable and justifiable. Those expenses also appear directly related to Plaintiff’s efforts in seeking compliance with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order and these 28 1 confer efforts with Mr. Fields, Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to obtain Defendants’ passports 2 and declarations, responding to the Court’s OSC, and related tasks. (ECF No. 72 at 23-40.) 3 In her Sanctions Motion, Plaintiff reported attorneys Assly Sayyar and Renie 4 Leakakos expended 30.4 hours at a rate of $225.00 per hour, for time spent between July 5 12, 2022 and August 5, 2022 attempting to obtain Defendants’ passports and declarations, 6 jointly contacting the Court on July 22, 2022 and July 26, 2022, and drafting Plaintiff’s 7 Sanctions Motion. (ECF No. 72 at 8-9.) 8 Plaintiff’s Sanctions Motion also estimated an additional 16 hours, amounting to 9 $3,600.00, would be expended between August 5, 2022 and the OSC Hearing on August 10 23, 2022 related to preparation for the OSC Hearing. (ECF No. 72 at 18, ¶ 22.) This amount 11 appears to be reasonable given Defendants and Mr. Fields untimely filed several 12 declarations, a Response to OSC, and Declaration In Lieu of a Reply after August 5, 2022. 13 (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 77.) 14 2. Plaintiff’s Client Representative’s Travel Costs 15 Additionally, Plaintiff incurred $1,545.38 to have Plaintiff’s client representative 16 Nate Svette travel to, and appear at, the OSC Hearing.2 This amount is also reasonable 17 given the Court required Nate Svette to appear in person. 18 3. Deductions for Overly Broad and Vague Timekeeping Entries 19 Among the timekeeping entries submitted by Plaintiff for work completed between 20 July 12, 2022 and August 5, 2022 were numerous redactions by Plaintiff’s counsel. Ms. 21 Sayyar’s declaration indicates these redacted entries “remov[ed] non-relevant time entries 22 not related to the violation” and were made to “preserve the attorney-client privilege.” 23 (ECF No. 72 at 17, ¶ 19.) 24 Due to the redactions, the following timekeeping entries reflect what the Court finds 25 to be overly broad and vague so the Court cannot assess the reasonableness of the hours 26 27 2 Mr. Svette’s airfare was $916.18, and his cost of lodging was $629.20. (Pl.’s Sanctions 28 1 counsel reportedly worked related to Defendants’ violation of the June 21, 2022 Order: 2 Ms. Sayyar and Ms. Leakakos’ timekeeping entries on (1) July 12, 2022 for “Call with 3 Nate re” for 0.2 hours; (2) July 13, 2022 to “Draft email to client re” for 0.1 hours; (3) July 4 13, 2022 to “Draft email to client re” for 0.3 hours; (4) July 22, 2022 to “Send and receive 5 email with client” for 0.2 hours; (5) July 26, 2022 to “Draft lengthy email to client” for 0.5 6 hours; (6) July 27, 2022 to “Draft email to client” for 0.1 hours; (7) August 1, 2022 for 7 “Telephone call with Nate Svette” for 0.5 hours; (8) August 3, 2022 for “Call with Nate” 8 for 0.4 hours; (9) August 3, 2022 to “Draft email to Nate” for 0.3 hours; (10) August 3, 9 2022 to “Send and receive email with client” for 0.3 hours; (11) August 4, 2022 to “Draft 10 email to client” for 0.1 hours; (12) August 4, 2022 to “Review emails from Nate” for 0.2 11 hours; (13) August 4, 2022 to “Review emails from client re” for 0.2 hours; (14) August 4, 12 2022 for “Call with client re” for 0.3 hours; (15) August 5, 2022 to “Review emails from 13 client re” for 0.2 hours; and (16) August 5, 2022 for “Telephone call with client re” for 0.3 14 hours. (ECF No. 72 at 23-40.) 15 Given these sixteen timekeeping entries, the total hours the Court finds overly broad 16 and vague for Ms. Sayyar and Ms. Leakakos’ work between July 12, 2022 and August 5, 17 2022 is equivalent to 4.2 hours. 18 4. Total Costs Incurred By Plaintiff 19 After the Court’s deductions for overly broad timekeeping entries, Plaintiff incurred 20 $5,895 in fees related to work between July 12, 2022 and August 5, 2022. Computing this 21 amount with the additional 16 hours of preparation for the OSC Hearing and travel 22 expenses for Mr. Svette’s appearance at the OSC Hearing, Plaintiff incurred a total of 23 $11,040.38 necessitated by Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s June 21, 2022 24 Order. Rule 37(b)(2)(C) limits the amount of recoverable fees and expenses to those 25 directly related to, or “caused by,” the discovery misconduct. Goodyear Tire & Rubber 26 Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 n.5 (2017). As Plaintiff’s counsel has reasonably 27 sought no more than what was incurred directly from Defendants’ noncompliance with the 28 June 21, 2022 Order, and by operation of the mandatory expense-shifting provision of Rule 1 37, Plaintiff is entitled to $11,040.38 in attorney’s fees and expenses. 2 G. Defendants and Mr. Fields Should Pay Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and 3 Expenses Jointly and Severally 4 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) allows the Court to impose the obligation to pay expenses on the 5 disobedient party, the party’s attorney, or both. The Court finds Defendants and Mr. Fields 6 must jointly and severally pay the attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff due to 7 Defendants’ violation of the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order. 8 First, Defendants should be liable for payment of expenses because the ultimate 9 responsibility for the conduct of the case rests with them. Even if the delays and failures 10 in this case were due to Mr. Field’s negligent conduct alone, Defendants are nonetheless 11 liable given their attorneys’ actions and conduct are imputed to them. See Link v. Wabash 12 R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); W. Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 13 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1990). “Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our 14 system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his 15 lawyer-agent and is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged 16 upon the attorney.’” Link, 370 U.S. at 634 quoting Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320, 326 (1879). 17 Second, there is some indication Defendants may have also been responsible for the 18 delay. For example, the Fields Declaration and Defendants’ Declarations in Response to 19 OSC all state Defendants George Alvarez, Mario Alvarez, and Darci Alvarez were made 20 aware of the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order on July 5, 2022. (ECF No. 73 at 3 ¶ 7.) Despite 21 this knowledge, all three Defendants failed to provide complete copies of their passports 22 and declarations to Mr. Fields before July 12, 2022. (ECF No. 74 at 8-10.) Defendants 23 George Alvarez and Mario Alvarez actually had copies of the Court’s order in their 24 possession and should have been aware it not only required the production of copies of 25 current passports but also a declaration indicating the status of passports prior to 2007. Id. 26 at 8,9. Defendant Darci Alvarez did not provide any copies of her passport to Mr. Fields 27 until July 14, 2022. Id. at 10, ¶¶ 4-5. 28 For these reasons, Defendants should be responsible for payment of expenses. 1 However, Defendants should not be solely responsible given Mr. Field’s negligent 2 conduct. As detailed above, Mr. Fields’ indifference for Court deadlines cannot be excused. 3 Although mistakes periodically occur during litigation, Mr. Fields established a pattern of 4 promising to Plaintiff and the Court that discovery was forthcoming and then failing to 5 produce by the deadlines. Mr. Fields’ conduct contributed to the delay in this case and the 6 Defendants’ violations of the Court’s order. Mr. Fields should therefore also be liable for 7 the expenses Plaintiff incurred after July 12, 2022 and the sanctions proceedings which 8 have flowed from the violation of the June 21, 2022 Order. 9 Based on the foregoing, Defendants and Mr. Fields are jointly and severally liable 10 and responsible for payment of $11,040.38 in attorney’s fees and expenses. See Curtis v. 11 Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1223 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (imposing 12 $15,695.00 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) sanctions jointly and severally upon defendants and their 13 counsel). 14 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Sanction Motion with respect to monetary sanctions 15 and ORDERS Defendants and Mr. Fields to jointly and severally pay for reasonable 16 attorney’s fees and expenses of $11,040.38. Payment to Plaintiff must be made within 17 thirty (30) days of issuance of this Order. Further, to the extent applicable, Defendants and 18 Mr. Fields shall incur a fine of $100.00 per day for each day they fail to fully satisfy 19 payment. 20 H. Reporting to the State Bar of California 21 California Business and Professions Code § 6068(o)(3) requires attorneys to self- 22 report imposition of judicial sanctions of $1,000.00 or more. The Clerk of Court shall 23 forward a copy of this order to the State Bar of California to ensure the reporting is 24 completed. 25 I. Plaintiff’s Request for Compensatory Civil Contempt Order 26 Finally, the Court turns to whether Plaintiff’s request for a compensatory civil 27 contempt order against Defendants and Mr. Fields is warranted. 28 Title 18 of the United States Code section 401 provides: 1 a court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine … at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as – (1) 2 Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the 3 administration of justice; (2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, 4 rule, decree, or command. 5 6 18 U.S.C. § 401. Civil contempt is designed to induce compliance with a court order; 7 punishment therefor is conditioned upon the contemnor’s continuing noncompliance and 8 is limited to imprisonment until the contemnor complies with the order or until the trial 9 ends. United States v. Rose, 806 F.2d 931, 933 (9th Cir. 1986) citing to United States v. 10 Powers, 629 F.2d 619, 627 (9th Cir.1980). “Punishment for civil contempt is usually 11 considered to be remedial. The penalty is designed to enforce compliance with a court 12 order.” United States v. Powers, 629 F.2d 619, 627 (9th Cir. 1980) citing to In Re Timmons, 13 607 F.2d 120, 124 (5th Cir. 1979). “For that reason, civil contempt punishment is 14 conditional and must be lifted if the contemnor obeys the order of the court.” Shillitani v. 15 United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966). 16 Plaintiff’s request for an award of compensatory civil contempt pursuant to 18 17 U.S.C. section 401 is premised on the basis that compensatory civil contempt sanctions are 18 designed to compel future compliance and such an order here would dissuade Defendants 19 from further disobedience with discovery deadlines. (Pl.’s Sanction Motion, ECF No. 72 20 at 5:1-6.) Plaintiff argues the history of discovery disputes in this case shows Defendants’ 21 past intent and may be a reflection of what is yet to arise given fact discovery does not 22 close until October 4, 2022 and expert discovery has not yet begun. Plaintiff also argues 23 Defendants should be held in civil contempt as a client is ordinarily chargeable with his 24 counsel’s negligent acts and Mr. Fields’ responses to the Court’s questions during the OSC 25 Hearing demonstrated his disregard for deadlines. Id. at 5:10-21. Specifically, Plaintiff 26 pointed to Mr. Fields’ representations that Defendants had fully complied with the Court’s 27 order albeit late, and Plaintiff’s Sanction Motion was not necessary as Plaintiff would have 28 eventually received all documents. 1 The Court acknowledges the arguments raised by Plaintiff’s counsel as Mr. Fields 2 and Defendants’ conduct thus far (including the extensive history detailed above) 3 demonstrates their dilatory approach to discovery and discovery obligations. However, the 4 Court does not find it appropriate to issue an order of compensatory civil contempt as the 5 penalty of a civil contempt award is designed to enforce punishment and compliance. 6 Although it took twenty-one days after the July 12, 2022 deadline for Mr. Fields and 7 Defendants to fully comply with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order, they have now complied. 8 Defendants produced complete passports and declarations for Defendants George Alvarez, 9 Mario Alvarez, and Darci Alvarez on July 25, 2022. (ECF Nos. 72 at 16, ¶15; 73 at 5, ¶23.) 10 Mr. Fields produced a complete passport and declaration for Defendant Magali Alvarez on 11 August 2, 2022. (ECF No. 70 at 2:15-17.) A finding of compensatory civil contempt does 12 not appear to be necessary for enforcing future compliance as Mr. Fields and Defendants 13 have also retained additional co-counsel to deal with pending discovery and avoid future 14 discovery errors. (Fields Declaration, ECF No. 73 at 2:20-23.) As of August 11, 2022, 15 additional counsel for the Defendants had been retained and appeared on the record. (ECF 16 No. 76.) 17 The Court recognizes the laggard timeline for Mr. Fields and Defendants to fully 18 comply; a recognition reflected in the Court’s above order of monetary sanctions against 19 Mr. Fields and Defendants. However, as of the August 23, 2022 OSC Hearing Defendants 20 had fully complied with the June 21, 2022 Order, thus an order of compensatory civil 21 contempt would neither prompt further compliance nor document production. 22 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to issue a formal finding of 23 compensatory civil contempt against Defendants. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / I IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Sanction Motion with respect to monetary sanctions 3 orders Defendants and Mr. Fields to jointly and severally pay for reasonable attorney’s 4 ||fees and expenses of $11,040.38. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Sanction Motion with 5 ||respect to a finding of compensatory civil contempt. The Court also ORDERS a copy of 6 order to be forwarded to the State Bar of California by the Clerk of Court. * 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: October 4, 2022 A Ss 10 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || 26 The Order may be sent to the following contact point at the State Bar’s Office of Chief 27 || Trial Counsel: State Bar of California Intake Unit 28 845 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017