Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA S ANDRA M C M ILLION , ET AL ., C ASE N O . 16-cv-03396-YGR Plaintiffs , O RDER R E : P LAINTIFFS ' M OTION TO
vs. E XTEND D EADLINES AND FOR S ANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 173 R ASH C URTIS & A SSOCIATES , Defendant .
Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadlines in this case with regard to the service of amended expert designations and filing of a notice plan. (Dkt. No. 173.) Also before the Court is plaintiff’s request for sanctions. ( Id .) On October 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Corley ordered defendant to produce VIC call log data. (Dkt. No. 109.) On December 19, 2017, this Court ordered “defendant to produce VIC call logs bearing the date, time, debtor first name, debtor last name, account number, result of call, and call duration by Tuesday, December 26, 2017.” (Dkt. No. 145.) At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, this Court again ordered defendant to produce usable VIC call logs by February 15, 2018 and stated that “[f]ailure to do so will result in daily damages.” (Dkt. No. 173, Declaration of Yeremey Krivoshey (“Krivoshey Decl.”), Ex. A at 33:2-5.) Defendant produced VIC logs on February 21, 2018. However, plaintiffs contend that the production “is missing account numbers, the results of the calls, and, in some cases, even the phone number called.” (Krivoshey Decl. ¶ 3.) Accordingly, the Court O RDERS as follows 1. Daily sanctions in the amount of $250 per day shall be assessed against defendant
24 beginning on March 1, 2018. 25 2. Defendant shall file notice with this Court when defendant believes it has substantially
26 February 28, 2018 complied with this Court’s order to “produce VIC call logs bearing the date, time, 27 debtor first name, debtor last name, account number, result of call.” (Dkt. No. 109.) 28 *2 3. If plaintiffs disagree that defendant has substantially complied with this Court’s order
to “produce VIC call logs bearing the date, time, debtor first name, debtor last name, account number, result of call” plaintiffs may file a response no later than three business days thereafter.
4. The Court will extend the deadlines in this case with regard to the service of amended
expert designations and filing of a notice plan after defendant has complied with this Court’s prior orders. ( See Dkt. Nos. 145, 173-1, Ex. A.) I T I S S O O RDERED .
Dated: Y VONNE G ONZALEZ R OGERS
U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT J UDGE 2