United States District Court, D. Nevada
CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter involves Partner Weekly's breach of contract action against Viable Marketing and Chad Elie. ( See Compl. (#1-2) at Exhibit A). Before the court is Partner Weekly's motion to compel Mr. Elie's responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents (#89). For the reasons stated below, Partner Weekly's motion is granted.
For purposes of Partner Weekly's motion to compel, the relevant facts include (1) a brief overview of this action's procedural history and (2) the circumstances precipitating Partner Weekly's motion to compel. Both are discussed below.
A. Procedural History
On December 12, 2007, Partner Weekly contracted to promote Viable Marketing's goods and services through various online advertising channels. Sometime in 2008, Viable Marketing breached the contract. In response, Partner Weekly commenced this action in October 2009.
In February 2010, the Honorable Philip M. Pro, U.S. District Judge, ordered the parties to arbitrate. ( See Mins. Proceedings #19). At that time, Mr. Elie had not yet appeared in this action. Mr. Elie is a former corporate officer of Viable Marketing, which is now defunct.
Partner Weekly prevailed in arbitration, ( see Mot. to Confirm #34), which Judge Pro confirmed in April 9, 2012. (Order #42). On March 15, 2013, the court corrected its order confirming Partner Weekly's arbitration to remove its application to Mr. Elie. ( See Order #60). On the same date, the court ordered Mr. Elie to file an answer so that Partner Weekly could litigate its claims against him.
B. The Discovery Dispute
The parties are currently in the midst of discovery. On November 20, 2013, Partner Weekly served Mr. Elie with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Before the deadline to respond elapsed, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline to respond to the interrogatories until January 6, 2014. ( See Dec. 13 Letter (#89-3) at 1). The parties did not stipulate to extend the deadline to respond to the request for production of documents, which were due on December 23, 2013. ( Id. )
On January 6 and 9, 2014, Mr. Elie faxed responses to Partner Weekly's interrogatories and request for production of documents. However, Partner Weekly was dissatisfied with Mr. Elie's responses. According to Partner Weekly, Mr. Elie "did not fully answer most of the interrogatories and produced documents deficient in response to the requests for production." (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel (#89) at 3:22-24).
Following a telephonic meet and confer, Mr. Elie agreed to supplement his responses by January 23, 2014. On or about January 24, Partner Weekly received untimely and allegedly inadequate supplements. In response to Mr. Elie's repeated failure to produce satisfactory discovery responses, Partner Weekly sent Mr. Elie a letter on February 17, 2014, which outlined the deficiencies that needed to be cured. Mr. Elie never responded. Consequently, on March 28, 2014, Partner Weekly filed the instant motion to compel.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) governs discovery's scope and limits. It provides for two forms of discovery: party-controlled discovery and court-controlled discovery. The first sentence of Rule 26(b)(1) governs party-controlled discovery. It provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). The second sentence of Rule 26(b)(1) governs court-controlled discovery. It ...