Unit 53, Inc. v. Run Roadlines, Inc
2:24-cv-01718
E.D. Cal.Jul 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Unit 53, Inc. sued Defendants Run Roadlines, Inc., Manpreet Randhawa, and 3515 Hwy 99, LLC for breach of a shipping container lease and to recover real property.
- Plaintiff served discovery requests, but Defendants repeatedly failed to provide sufficient responses despite multiple court orders.
- The Court issued a series of discovery orders compelling Defendants to respond, produce documents, and pay attorney’s fees for discovery misconduct.
- Despite extensions and repeated warnings, Defendants provided inadequate responses, failed to pay ordered fees, and largely stopped participating in the case.
- Plaintiff subsequently moved for severe sanctions, including striking Defendants’ answers (equivalent to default judgment), or awarding further fees and costs.
- Defendants did not oppose the sanctions motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions for discovery failures | Defendants refused to comply with discovery and court orders, justifying severe sanctions. | Claimed good faith efforts, produced some documents, but overall non-responsiveness. | Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions granted; answers stricken, default to be entered. |
| Deeming RFAs admitted | All requests for admission (RFAs) should be deemed admitted due to late or lacking responses. | Defendants eventually served some RFA responses. | Request denied; Defendants’ timely responses to court order noted; almost all RFAs admitted. |
| Award of reasonable expenses | Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs for Defendants’ noncompliance. | No response provided. | Court orders Plaintiff to submit expense statement for further award. |
| Appropriateness of terminating sanctions | Lesser sanctions have been tried and failed; only default is effective. | No arguments or opposition offered. | Factors support striking answers; default sanction appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2012) (striking answer equivalent to default judgment as a terminating sanction)
- Adriana Int'l. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1990) (dismissal/default as sanctions for violating discovery orders)
- Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2011) (default judgment as a discovery sanction)
- Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004) (terminating sanctions for persistent discovery violations)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (prejudice sufficient when party fails to produce discovery)