AMENDED ORDER 
CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter involves Drive Time Automotive’s RICO action against Marlon Deguzman, among others. (See Compl. (#1) at 7). Drive Time Automotive’s Emergency Motion to Compel is before the court (#28). Defendant Shaker Radwan opposed (#30); and Drive Time replied (#31). On Wednesday, January 14, 2015, the court held a hearing. For the reasons stated below, Drive Time’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On October 20, 2014, Drive Time Automotive (“Drive Time”), served Shaker Radwan, K&S Auto Sales, Inc., Texas Fine Cars, Inc., Car Show Moters, and Demetri Jony (i.e., the “Radwan Defendants”) with written discovery. Because the Radwan Defendants did not timely respond, Drive Time now seeks three forms of relief: an order (1) compelling the Radwan Defendants to respond to Drive Time’s interrogatories and document requests, (2) holding that the Radwan Defendants’ objections are waived, and (2) issuing monetary sanctions, including an award of fees and costs. (Pl.’s Em. Mot. (#28) at 6:19– 21). The facts underlying the dispute follow.
I. Defendants Miss the First Discovery Deadline
Drive Time served its written discovery requests on October 20, 2014. (Kaplan Aff. (#28) at ¶ 2). Defense Counsel’s opposition states that written discovery requests were received “on or about October 30, 2014, ” but Defense Counsel “did not submit these discovery requests to the Defendants until on or about November 11, 2014.” (Def.’s Opp’n (#30) at ¶ 3). Defendants’ responses were due November 24, 2014; nothing was received. (Doc. #28 at ¶ 4).
On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff’s Counsel sent Defense Counsel a letter, notifying Defense Counsel of his client’s failure to respond. (Id. at ¶ 5). Plaintiff’s Counsel also stated that, under the Rules, Defendants’ failure to respond renders the requests for admissions deemed as admitted and objections to interrogatories and requests for production of documents deemed waived. (Id.)
On December 5, 2015, Defense Counsel responded via email, stating that “he forwarded all discovery requests to his client(s) as soon as he received them.” (Id. at ¶ 6). Additionally, Defense Counsel requested an extension to respond until December 8, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Counsel responded, stating that the admissions are deemed admitted and agreeing to delaying filing a motion to compel on the interrogatories and requests for documents until December 9, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 7).
II. Defendants Miss the Second Discovery Deadline
On December 9, 2014, Defense Counsel emailed Plaintiff’s Counsel, informing him that Defendants “failed to open their email until December 7, 2014.” (Id. at ¶ 8). Defense Counsel also stated that Defendants untimely responses to the Requests for Admissions would be served by the end of the day and that answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents would be received by December 12, 2014. (Id.)
Later that day, Plaintiff’s Counsel responded, reiterating that the requests for admissions are deemed omitted and that objections have been waived. (Id. at ¶ 9). Defense Counsel agreed that objections have been waived. (Id. at ¶ 10).
III. Defendants Miss the Third Discovery Deadline
On December 12, 2014, the date that Defendants’ answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents were due, Plaintiffs’ Counsel received nothing. (Id. at ¶ 11).
On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff’s Counsel attempted to contact Defense Counsel again. (Id. at ¶ 13). As of December 24, 2014—the date of Plaintiff’s ...