Opinion
Case No. 2:09-cv-01940-LDG-GWF.
April 20, 2011
ORDER Motion to Compel (#31)
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's Motion to Compel Discovery (#31), filed March 24, 2011.
Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD") requests an order compelling Plaintiff to substantively respond to Defendant's interrogatories and awarding attorney's fees and costs as sanctions. ( Id.) To date, no party has responded to this motion and the time for opposition has now passed. LR 7-2(d) states in pertinent part, that "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." As a result, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to compel (#31).
In addition, because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant's discovery requests, Plaintiff shall substantively respond without objection. A party who fails to serve responses or objections in a timely manner has waived any and all objections to discovery requests. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b), 34(b); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding waiver of objections due to untimely response to requests for production); David v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding waiver of objections due to untimely response to interrogatories). See also Senat v. City of New York, 255 F.R.D. 338, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (stating that "there is consistent authority that a failure to serve timely responses to interrogatories and document requests serves as a waiver of objections."); Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 409-10 (C.D.Cal. 2005).
The Court also finds that the award of attorneys fees and costs is merited under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 due to Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendant's discovery requests and failure to respond to the present motion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's Motion to Compel Discovery (#31) is granted as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall substantively respond without objection to Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's interrogatories and requests for production by May 2, 2011; and
2. Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department shall submit an application for attorneys fees and costs by May 2, 2011 that details the number of hours expended on this matter and the applicable hourly rate.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on this matter scheduled for Tuesday, April 26, 2011 is vacated.