Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-01278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, Judge Hixson denied sanctions but granted Floyd’s request to extend fact discovery.
Michael Devin Floyd and Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC; the fact-discovery deadline was extended to June 2, 2025.
What happened
In Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, Michael Devin Floyd asked for sanctions based on Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC’s alleged failure to provide adequate discovery responses. The case had been removed to federal court, and the parties had been disputing discovery requests after the court issued case-management and discovery orders.
Floyd sought monetary sanctions, exclusion of evidence, and default judgment under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found sanctions unwarranted at that time because no court order compelling discovery had been issued before Floyd filed his motion, and Saber Fitness was supplementing its responses in compliance with the court’s orders.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Floyd’s motion for sanctions. The judge granted Floyd’s unopposed request to extend the fact-discovery deadline to June 2, 2025.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-01278
- Thomas Hixson
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Michael Devin Floyd moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, alleging that Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC had not adequately answered his discovery requests. He requested monetary sanctions, exclusion of evidence, and entry of default judgment. Floyd also asked the court to extend the fact-discovery deadline to June 2, 2025; Saber Fitness did not oppose that request.
The case was removed to federal court on March 1,
- The court issued no case-management order until December 6, after addressing several motions. Floyd served written discovery on January 6, 2025, and a second request for production of documents on January
- The parties met and conferred and submitted letter briefs about their disputes. On April 3 and April 4, the court ordered Saber Fitness to provide supplemental responses to certain interrogatories. Floyd filed his sanctions motion on April 3, before Saber Fitness had an opportunity to provide the ordered supplemental responses. The record showed that Saber Fitness provided some supplemental responses on April 4 and stated that it would provide additional responses by April
- The court also ordered the parties to meet and confer about compliance and submit an updated report by April 30.
Court’s Rulings
The court denied Floyd’s motion for sanctions. It concluded that sanctions were unwarranted at that time because there had been no court order compelling discovery before Floyd filed the motion, and Saber Fitness was continuing to supplement its responses in compliance with the court’s orders. The court cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that dismissal under Rule 37(b) is appropriate only for failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery, and that excluding evidence can be a harsh sanction.
The court granted Floyd’s request and extended the fact-discovery deadline to June 2, 2025. It stated that any request to extend other case-management deadlines would require the parties to meet and confer and then file either a stipulation and proposed order or a joint letter with competing deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.