Halla v. LikeZebra, LLC
- John Docherty
- 0:19-cv-02097
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In Halla v. LikeZebra, LLC, Judge Docherty granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel discovery, deferring sanctions.
The order directly affected plaintiffs Donald E. Halla and Donald E. Halla Roth IRA by requiring discovery responses and requiring Mr. Halla to attend a deposition. It also affected defendant LikeZebra, LLC, whose motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
In Halla v. LikeZebra, LLC, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to honor loan agreements and asserted breach-of-contract and fraud claims. The plaintiffs were representing themselves when this discovery dispute arose.
LikeZebra asked the court to require the plaintiffs to answer interrogatories, produce documents, answer requests for admission, and attend a deposition. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel, ordered the plaintiffs to respond within 21 days, ruled that objections to the interrogatories and document requests were waived, overruled untimely objections to the requests for admission, and required Mr. Halla to attend a deposition. The court deferred deciding whether to impose sanctions.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued the February 28, 2022 order, explaining that LikeZebra had not meaningfully tried to resolve the dispute with Mr. Halla before filing the motion.
The detailed version
- Halla v. LikeZebra, LLC · No. 0:19-cv-02097
- John F. Docherty
- Feb. 28, 2022
Background
Donald E. Halla and Donald E. Halla Roth IRA sued LikeZebra, LLC, Keith Phillips, and Craig Rickard. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants sought an investment from Mr. Halla, later obtained loans from Mr. Halla and his Roth IRA, and did not honor the loan agreements. The amended complaint asserted breach of contract and fraud and sought to hold LikeZebra’s members personally liable by piercing the company’s corporate veil.
The parties had been engaged in discovery since October 2020. LikeZebra served interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, and a deposition notice. The opinion states that the plaintiffs had not responded to the interrogatories or document requests, had not timely responded to the requests for admission, and that Mr. Halla did not attend his scheduled deposition. After the plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew, Mr. Halla notified the court that he would represent both plaintiffs himself. The plaintiffs did not respond to LikeZebra’s motion to compel.
Motion to Compel
LikeZebra moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel discovery responses and a deposition, requested sanctions, and argued that any objections to its discovery requests should be treated as waived. The court held that LikeZebra had shown that the requested discovery was relevant to the claims and defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. Because the plaintiffs filed no response, they did not establish that the discovery was irrelevant, unduly burdensome, or disproportionate.
The court granted in part and denied in part LikeZebra’s motion to compel. It ruled that any objections the plaintiffs might have had to the interrogatories and requests for production were waived because the plaintiffs did not object to them. It overruled the plaintiffs’ untimely objections to the requests for admission. The plaintiffs were ordered to respond in full to the interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission within 21 days of the order. Mr. Halla was also ordered to appear for a deposition at a date and time LikeZebra would provide.
Sanctions
LikeZebra requested costs and attorney’s fees under Rule 37(a)(5). The court declined to impose sanctions at that time and deferred the sanctions decision. It found that imposing sanctions immediately would be unjust because LikeZebra had not tried to meet and confer with Mr. Halla before filing the motion; its most recent communications about the discovery had been with the plaintiffs’ former counsel approximately six months earlier. The court stated that it would consider sanctions after observing the parties’ conduct during the following 21 days, including possible sanctions up to and including a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute if the plaintiffs did not comply with the order. Judge John F. Docherty also cautioned LikeZebra to meet and confer before filing any further motions.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.