Foundation Auto Holdings, LLC v. Weber Motors, Fresno, Inc.

Foundation Auto Holdings · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 6, 2025 · No. 1:21-cv-00970-EPG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Intervenor Plaintiff Templeton Marsh, Ltd.’s unopposed motion to compel discovery from Defendants in a breach-of-contract action. The court ordered Defendants to provide complete responses and documents, execute verifications, and pay $1,681.50 in attorney’s fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Holdings

  1. The requested documents and information were relevant to the claims and defenses, were not shown to be privileged, and were proportional to the needs of the case.
  2. Defendants waived any objections to the discovery requests by failing to serve responses or objections within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  3. The court granted the motion to compel and ordered Defendants to serve complete responses and produce all requested documents, including a signed verification under penalty of perjury that the responses were complete.
  4. Because the motion to compel was granted and Defendants failed to establish an exception, the court awarded Templeton Marsh $1,681.50 in reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in preparing the motion.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should compel Defendants to respond to Templeton Marsh’s document requests when Defendants served no responses or objections.
  2. Whether the requested discovery was relevant, nonprivileged, and proportional to the needs of the case.
  3. Whether Templeton Marsh was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)(followed)
  • Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)(followed)
  • Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438-39 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • Superior Commc’ns v. Earhugger, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 215, 217 (C.D. Cal. 2009)(followed)
  • Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…