Murray v. Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc., 2:15-cv-00087

Court granted motion to compel on Oct 8, 2015 and directed fees motion due by Oct 15, 2015.
Defendant moved for $2,650 in attorneys’ fees tied to the underlying motion to compel.
Plaintiff initially faced potential sanctions against both Plaintiff and his counsel; later agreement restricted to Plaintiff only.
Defendant withdrew its request to recover fees against Plaintiff’s counsel; sanctions sought only against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff argued indigence and lack of bad faith; counsel cited communication issues via estranged wife as cause of delay.
Court denied sanctions against Plaintiff, but warned of future sanctions for noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 37(a)(5) expenses are recoverable here	Plaintiff argues sanctions would be unjust due to indigence and nonbad faith.	Expenses are appropriate when motion to compel is granted unless unjust.	Sanctions denied; expenses not awarded
Impact of Plaintiff's indigence on sanctions	Indigence supports withholding sanctions.	Indigence is a factor but does not mandate denial.	Indigence considered but not dispositive; sanctions denied
Is a finding of bad faith required for sanctions	Delay caused by circumstances, not bad faith.	Bad faith not strictly required; prior conduct can justify sanctions.	No bad faith found; sanctions still denied
Sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel	Counsel's conflict and failure to relay messages mitigates sanctions.	Sanctions against counsel were warranted but were withdrawn.	Sanctions against counsel not imposed; focus remains on Plaintiff

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1994) (good or bad faith may be considered in unjust sanctions decisions)
Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1985) (great latitude in determining Rule 37 sanctions)