LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Demassa, 3:18-cv-00043

LegalForce (plaintiff) sued pro se defendant Chris Demassa for false advertising and related California business-practice claims, alleging his trademark preparation websites falsely advertise attorney services and divert business.
LegalForce served RFPs seeking detailed financial records (originally 2008–present); the court narrowed discovery to documents showing revenue, expenses, and profit from Jan 2014 to present, and required production to LegalForce’s outside counsel under a stipulated protective order.
Demassa produced only Schedule C tax forms for 2014–2017 and failed to produce underlying 2018–2019 business records; he contended some records did not yet exist and raised confidentiality concerns about LegalForce’s counsel.
The court gave Demassa multiple opportunities to comply, rejected his confidentiality objection because the protective order limited access to outside counsel, and warned that sanctions could follow continued noncompliance.
LegalForce renewed a sanctions motion seeking daily coercive fines ($500/day), attorneys’ fees, and contempt; the court found Rule 37 sanctions warranted for noncompliance but tailored relief given Demassa’s pro se status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 37 sanctions are warranted for failure to obey discovery orders	Demassa willfully refused to produce ordered financial documents despite court orders and warnings	Demassa says relevant records do not exist for 2018–2019 and that confidentiality concerns (LegalForce counsel) justify hesitation	Sanctions warranted: Demassa violated orders and lacks substantial justification; fees and coercive sanction ordered
Whether LegalForce is entitled to attorneys' fees and amount	Seek attorneys' fees for discovery motions at $250/hr and fees associated with sanctions motions	Demassa offered no substantial justification for nonproduction	Court awarded $2,000 for work on the two sanctions motions; denied fees for the original motion to compel
Whether a daily coercive monetary sanction should be imposed and amount	Requests $500/day until full compliance	Demassa cited pro se status, inability to pay, and partial disclosure to counsel	Court imposed $100/day until Demassa fully complies; vacatable upon compliance
Whether civil contempt should be entered	Requests contempt for violation of discovery orders	Demassa contends he provided disclosures to Tarabichi or lacks records	Court declined to hold Demassa in civil contempt at this time

Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1983) (discusses range of sanctions for discovery misconduct)
Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981) (most discovery remedies are discretionary)
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (standard for coercive sanctions conditioned on future compliance)
Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976) (district courts must have severe sanctions available to deter discovery abuses)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar standard and prevailing market rates for attorney’s fees)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method for calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees)
U.S. for Use & Ben. of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600 (9th Cir. 1988) (Rule 37 sanctions appropriate where willfulness, bad faith, or fault present)
Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence to support hourly rates for fee awards)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) (affidavits and prior decisions as evidence of prevailing rates)
Jordan v. Multnomah Cty., 815 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying lodestar in civil-rights fee context)