Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Td Auto Finance LLC v. Cinema Car Ii, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 23, 2014

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
CINEMA CAR II, INC.,

OPINION

JOSEPH A. DICKSON, District Judge.

This matter has come before the Court upon Plaintiff, TD Auto Finance LLC's, ("TD Auto'"), Motion to Compel discovery responses and for sanctions for Defendant, Cinema Car II, Inc.'s, ("Cinema Car"), failure to comply with this Court's June 05, 2014 Order. (See Text Order, ECF No. 20). After reviewing the submissions of the parties, as well as the entire record in this case, and for good cause shown, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED and the Court makes the following findings.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff served Defendant with Interrogatories and Requests for Production on December 19, 2013. (See Holtzman Decl., ΒΆΒΆ 3-4, ECF No. 23-3). Defendant failed to respond to the discovery requests by the parties' agreed deadline of February 14, 2014. (ECF No. 11). On February 24, 2014, by way of letter, Plaintiff requested a status conference with this Court in an effort to resolve the discovery dispute. (Id.). The Court held a status conference call with the parties on February 25, 2014. The parties, with the Court's approval, agreed to extend the discovery deadline through June 27, 2014. (ECF No. 14). On May 01, 2014, Plaintiff informed the Court, by way of letter, that Defendant had still yet to provide any written responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (ECF No. 16). The May 01, 2014 letter also explained that Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter on April 11, 2014, again requesting it to provide written responses and to complete its production of documents. (Id.). The April 11, 2014 letter also informed Defendant that if discovery was not produced by April 18, 2014, Plaintiff would see Court intervention. (Id.) Defendant never responded to Plaintiff's May 01, 2014 letter, nor produced the written responses or documents by April 18, 2014, as requested. Id.)

The Court held a telephonic status conference with the Parties on June 05, 2014, to discuss the discovery dispute. During the conference, Defendant assured the Court that it would serve all written responses to document requests and responsive documents by June 20, 2014. As a result of Defendant's assurances, the Court extended discovery once again through August 27, 2014. The Court also Ordered Cinema Car "to serve all written discovery responses no latter than 06/20114." (See Text Order, ECF No. 20). After not receiving discovery responses from Defendant by June 20, 2014, as agreed to and as Ordered by the Court, Plaintiff requested leave to file a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 21). On August 7, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an appropriate motion to compel discovery. (See Text Order, ECF No. 2 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel and for Sanctions on August 8, 2014. (ECF No. 23 Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff's Motion.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion to Compel:

Plaintiff asks this Court to compel production of all outstanding written discovery responses and documents. (Pl. Br., ECF No. 23-2, at 6). Discovery is governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.... It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l).

The broad scope of discovery rules and the liberal interpretation given them by the courts demonstrates that Congress realized that a "[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508, (1947).

In the current case, Defendant's failure to provide relevant information has substantially prejudiced Plaintiff. Defendant's willful noncompliance has caused significant delays in the resolution of this case and has forced Plaintiff to needlessly expend time and resources. Moreover, Defendant has failed to provide any excuse for not responding to the Plaintiff's requests or the Court's June 05, 2014 Order requiring Plaintiff to serve all written discovery responses no later than June 20, 2014. Defendant has been given ample time and opportunity to provide Plaintiff with Discovery, yet has chosen not to. On August 07, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file the instant motion to compel.

Accordingly, Defendant Cinema Car shall be compelled to answer to each pending interrogatory and document production request within fourteen (14) days. Defendant's responds shall be properly certified and served within this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.