Noshirvan v. Couture, 2:23-cv-01218

Danesh Noshirvan sued multiple defendants, alleging a conspiracy to harm him after he posted a video of defendant Couture online.
To support his claims, Noshirvan served interrogatories and document requests on defendants Jennifer Couture and Patrick Trainor.
When neither responded by the deadline, Noshirvan filed a motion to compel responses and sought expenses (including attorney’s fees).
After the motion was filed, Trainor promptly responded to the discovery requests, but Couture did not respond until after the motion was pending for some time.
Both defendants eventually provided responses, but Couture's delay prompted additional scrutiny regarding sanctions.
The court’s decision focuses on whether to compel further discovery and whether to impose sanctions for delayed responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compel Discovery	Defendants failed to answer timely; court should compel responses	Both defendants state discovery was answered after motion filed	Denied as moot—responses now provided
Sanctions for Discovery Delay	Both defendants should pay expenses for necessitating the motion	Trainor: responded contemporaneously; Couture: no opposition to fee request	Expenses/fees granted against Couture, not Trainor

(No official reporter citations were included in the order. Only unpublished (WL) citations are referenced. No entries required in this section.)