FULL TILT BOOGIE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. KEP FORTUNE, LLC, et al., Defendants Case No. 2:19-cv-09090 ODW (KESx) United States District Court, C.D. California Signed July 01, 2021 Counsel Ryan Andrew Ellis, Ryan Ellis Law, San Diego, CA, Jennifer Renee Lloyd, Howard and Howard Attorneys PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, Steven Edman Kish, III, Howard and Howard Attorneys PLLC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff. Ann Anooshian, Al Mohajerian, Mohajerian PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants. Wright II, Otis D., United States District Judge ORDER ACCEPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE *1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Admissions (Dkt. 50) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 62), the parties' oppositions and replies (Dkt. 52, 65, 66, 70), the other records on file herein, and the Reports and Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 67, 72). The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Reports and Recommendations to which objections (Dkt. 71, 78) have been made.[1] The Court accepts the reports, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Defendants' Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. 50) is DENIED; (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Dkt. 62) is GRANTED; (3) within TEN DAYS of the entry of this order, KEP Fortune, LLC shall (a) serve supplemental written responses to ROGs 1-8 and 10-24, omitting all objections overruled; (b) serve supplemental written responses to all RFPs, omitting all objections overruled and truthfully stating either that all responsive documents have been produced or that none exist; (c) serve a supplemental production of all responsive, nonprivileged documents not previously produced; and (d) provide Plaintiff with an index identifying each category of documents produced (e.g., location-related communications, documents relied on to draft the FDD, documents reflecting KEP's cost for inventory sold to Plaintiff, etc.) and the corresponding BATES numbers; (4) KEP Fortune, LLC is PROSCRIBED from (a) using any document KEP did not produce during the discovery period[2] to support its claims or defenses, except for documents already in Plaintiffs possession, custody, or control; (b) presenting expert testimony (either in court or via declaration) to support its claims or defenses that relies on documents KEP did not produce during the discovery period, except for documents already in Plaintiffs possession, custody, or control; and (c) presenting percipient testimony (either in court or via declaration) to support its claims or defenses from any witness who was not identified by name in KEP's initial disclosures or ROG responses; and (5) the parties are directed to promptly meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's reasonable fees and costs. Footnotes [1] On June 23, 2021, Defendants filed a duplicate copy of their objections (Dkt. 78) originally filed on June 4 (Dkt. 71). [2] The “discovery period” refers to the “Percipient/Fact Discovery” period set forth in the Court's Scheduling and Case Management Order (Dkt. 37).