DIRECTV, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. MK HOSPITALITY, INC. a Georgia corporation, COMPTRA, INC., MANISH KARAMSHI, LUZ RIOS, also known is Jenny Rios, STAR SATELLITES & COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JOHNY THOMAS, SMITA SHERE, et al., Defendants CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:15-CV-2563-MHC United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Filed August 10, 2017 Counsel John H. Jamnback, Pro Hac Vice, Scott T. Wilsdon, Pro Hac Vice, Yarmuth Wilsdon PLLC, Seattle, WA, Danielle Chattin, David Lewis Balser, King & Spalding, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff. Janne Yvette McKamey, Marietta, GA, for Defendants MK Hospitality, Inc., Luz Rios. Cohen, Mark H., United States District Judge ORDER *1 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC (“DIRECTV”)'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc 168] (“Pl.'s MPSJ”);[1] Defendant Smita Shere's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 169] (“Shere's MSJ”); Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 162]; Defendants MK Hospitality, Inc. (“MK Hospitality”) and Rios's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 163]; Defendants Karamshi and Comptra, Inc.'s Motion for a Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 166]; and Plaintiff's Request for Clerk's Entry of Default as to Defendant MK Hospitality, Inc. (“MK Hospitality”) [Doc. 209]. DIRECTV alleges that Defendants engaged in a scheme to distribute and sell DIRECTV satellite television programming in the Bahamas where DIRECTV is not licensed to sell and does not authorize the sale of its services. DIRECTV filed the above-styled Complaint on July 17, 2015, and amended it on April 14, 2016, to include the following four counts: (1) violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (2012); (2) violation of O.C.G.A. § 46-5-2 (“Avoiding or attempting to avoid payment for telecommunication services”); (3) conversion; and (4) breach of contract. Am Compl. [Doc. 107] ¶¶ 76-102. DIRECTV has moved for partial summary judgment on its claims brought pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) (Count I) and breach of contract (Count IV) against the following six Defendants: (1) MK Hospitality, (2) Luz Rios, (3) Manish Karamshi, (4) Star Satellites & Communications Inc. (“Star Satellites”), (5) Johny Thomas, and (6) Smita Shere.[2] Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.'s MPSJ [Doc. 168-1] (“Pl.'s Br.”). Defendant Shere has moved for summary judgment on all of DIRECTV's claims against her. Shere's MSJ. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND[3] A. DIRECTV and its Satellite Programming *2 DIRECTV provides digital satellite television programming to residential and commercial subscribers throughout the United States on a subscription and pay-per-view basis. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 1, 3-4, 20, 34. DIRECTV digitizes and compresses its satellite transmissions and then encrypts (electronically scrambles) those transmissions to prevent unauthorized viewing of its programming. Id. ¶ 7. A DIRECTV system consists of a DIRECTV-compatible satellite dish, a DIRECTV receiver, a DIRECTV access card, and cabling to connect these components. Id. ¶ 10. The satellite dish receives the encrypted signal, then transmits the signal by wire to the receiver, which decrypts the incoming signal using the DIRECTV access card, permitting the satellite transmission to be displayed on the attached television of a DIRECTV customer. Id. 7-12. The receivers and access cards are assigned unique numbers and are designed to permit DIRECTV to activate various programming packages in a manner consistent with the particular subscriber's authorization. Id. ¶ 13. The equipment will not decrypt satellite transmissions until it is activated, which involves the creation of a DIRECTV subscriber account for each access card or linking an access card to an already existing subscriber account. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Once an account is created, DIRECTV sends software via satellite transmissions to the subscriber's receiver which activates and enables the equipment to receive and decrypt the satellite programming authorized for that particular subscriber. Id. ¶ 16. Residential and commercial subscribers are required to have an account with DIRECTV and agree to the terms of a customer agreement which includes, among other things, identifying the service address where the equipment will be located and the programming viewed. Id. 21-22, 36-37. DIRECTV operates pursuant to licenses granted by the Federal Communications Commission and is permitted to provide programming only to residences and businesses in the United States; for this reason, it does not authorize the reception or viewing of its programming outside the United States. Id. ¶¶ 20, 32-34, 49, 51. B. Defendants MK Hospitality, Rios, and Karamshi Defendant MK Hospitality was an authorized DIRECTV dealer of commercial and residential accounts, and was located in Kennesaw, Georgia, from 2007 until May 2, 2014. Id. ¶ 61. MK Hospitality's relationship with DIRECTV was governed by two agreements: (1) an Independent Retailer Agreement, and (2) a Commercial Dealer Agreement. See Independent Retailer Agreement dated September 4, 2012 [Doc. 168-7]; Commercial Dealer Agreement dated March 11, 2013 [Doc. 168-8]; Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 62. Defendant Luz Rios is the owner and operator of MK Hospitality and executed the Independent Retailer Agreement as the owner.[4] Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 63, 141. Defendant Karamshi is the husband of Rios who began to work for MK Hospitality as a salesperson in 2013. Aff. of Manish Karamshi dated Dec. 21, 2016 [Doc. 193-2] ¶¶ 13-14. As an authorized dealer of DIRECTV satellite programming, MK Hospitality and individuals associated with that entity had access to the DIRECTV database which allowed dealers to create DIRECTV subscriber accounts. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 59-60. C. Defendants Star Satellites, Shere, and Thomas Defendant Star Satellites was an authorized DIRECTV dealer of commercial and residential accounts, located in Flushing, New York, from January 9, 2007, until July 17, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 64-65; Am. Compl. ¶ 11. The relationship between Star Satellites and DIRECTV was governed by the same two agreements: (1) an Independent Retailer Agreement, and (2) a Commercial Dealer Agreement. Independent Retailer Agreement dated Jan. 9, 2007 [Doc. 168-9]; Commercial Dealer Agreement dated March 3, 2011 [Doc. 168-10]; Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 65. Defendant Smita Shere's signature appears on each of the Star Satellites agreements as owner and president of Star Satellites. Independent Retailer Agreement dated Jan. 9, 2007; Commercial Dealer Agreement dated March 3, 2011; Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 65. However, Shere contends that the agreements between Star Satellites and DIRECTV were executed by her husband, Defendant Johny Thomas, not Shere. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 66 (citing Aff. of Johny Thomas signed Dec. 21, 2016 [Doc. 190-1] (“Thomas Aff.”) ¶ 6 (admitting that Thomas signed Shere's name to the 2007 DIRECTV agreement “with her express permission”)).[5] As an authorized dealer of DIRECTV satellite programming, Star Satellites and individuals associated with that entity had access to the DIRECTV database which allowed dealers to create DIRECTV subscriber accounts. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 59-60. D. The Independent Retailer and Commercial Dealer Agreements *3 Although DIRECTV is not licensed to sell and does not authorize the sale of its satellite programming outside the United States, the footprint, or the terrestrial territory within which the signals from DIRECTV satellites can be received, includes the Bahamas. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 43-44, 47-51. Therefore, in order to prevent the provision of DIRECTV programming outside the United States, the Independent Retailer Agreements and Commercial Dealer Agreements permitted dealers to solicit DIRECTV subscriber accounts only in the United States. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 67 (citing Independent Retailer Agreement § 1.1(b)); Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 69-70 (citing Commercial Dealer Agreement §§ 1.2, 1.12). The Independent Retailer Agreements and Commercial Dealer Agreements also required dealers to “[v]erify, validate and certify the accuracy of the information provided by the [subscriber].” PL's SUMF ¶¶ 68 (citing Independent Retailer Agreement § 2.11(c)), 72 (citing Commercial Dealer Agreement § 2.2(c)).[6] E. The Alleged Scheme to Provide DIRECTV Programming in the Bahamas The crux of DIRECTV's lawsuit is that Defendants engaged in a scheme to unlawfully provide DIRECTV satellite programming to residents in the Bahamas. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 62-74. Specifically, DIRECTV alleges that Defendants created DIRECTV subscriber accounts that were fraudulent because the name on the account was not the individual or entity who was the intended recipient of the DIRECTV programming and the address on the account was not the location where the programming was going to be viewed.[7] Id. Instead, the subscriber accounts created by Defendants had false names and addresses and were sold to companies in the Bahamas, including Satellite Bahamas (owned by Michael Garraway) and Total Electronics (owned by Jermaine Curtis), so that the Bahamian companies could in turn provide DIRECTV satellite programming to residents in the Bahamas. Id.; see also Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 108.[8] In support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DIRECTV has presented the following evidence of subscriber accounts that were created by Defendants: MK Hospitality Accounts • Six commercial accounts were created using the MK Hospitality user identification information and password in the DIRECTV database. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 109. Each of the six accounts listed billing or mailing addresses that belonged or was registered to MK Hospitality or Star Satellites. Id. ¶¶ 110-12.[9] None of the purported businesses listed as subscribers on the six accounts had actual addresses matching the service address listed on the subscriber account. Id. 114. *4 • By way of example of one of the six MK Hospitality accounts, DIRECTV references Account No. 077423511, which a printout from the DIRECTV database confirms was created by MK Hospitality in the name of a business called Pereira Realty Group. Id. ¶ 115; see also Excerpt from DIRECTV STMS Database [Doc. 168-18]. The billing address is listed as P.O. Box 1167, Stockbridge, Ga., which the Stockbridge Post Office has confirmed was owned by Luz Rios. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 115; see also Letter dated March 2, 2016 [Doc. 170-18]. A DIRECTV invoice appears to indicate that this account was active in November of 2013. Invoice for account 077423511 [Doc. 170-17]. • In another example of the six MK Hospitality accounts, DIRECTV references Account No. 40653007 in the name of Elite LLC, which had a billing address of 13222 59th Ave., Flushing, NY 11355 (Star Satellites' address of record). Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 116-17. At least one document produced by Satellite Bahamas confirms that this account was created by MK Hospitality and sold to Satellite Bahamas to provide DIRECTV programming in the Bahamas. Id.; Order Confirmation for Elite LLC [Doc. 168-16] at 21. Testimony from Garraway confirms that he purchased this account from Defendants and used it to provide DIRECTV programming to residents in the Bahamas. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 116 (citing Garraway Dep. at 119-23). Star Satellites Dealer Accounts • 103 commercial subscriber accounts and one residential subscriber account were created using the Star Satellites dealer user identification and password in the DIRECTV database. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 120.[10] Sixty-three of the 103 accounts list the same two Georgia post office boxes used as the mailing address for some of the six MK Hospitality subscriber accounts discussed above. Id. ¶¶ 121-22. Another thirty accounts list the same Star Satellites address of record (13222 59th Ave., Flushing, NY) discussed above with regard to MK Hospitality account No. 40653007. Id. ¶ 123. Fifty-four of the 103 Star Satellites commercial accounts were identified by Garraway as accounts he and his company used to provide DIRECTV programming to residents in the Bahamas. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 99 (citing Garraway Dep. at 40-42), 126 (same). • By way of example of the 103 Star Satellites Commercial accounts, DIRECTV references Account No. 033372068, which a printout from the DIRECTV database confirms was created by Star Satellites in the name of a business called VZ Net. Id. ¶ 124; see also Excerpt from DIRECTV STMS Database [Doc. 168-19]. The billing address is listed as a P.O. Box 2171 in Kennesaw, Ga., which the Kennesaw Post Office has confirmed was owned by Manish Karamshi. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 125; Letter dated March 2, 2016 [Doc. 170-19]. • The only residential account at issue in this case, Account No. 65155737, was created by Star Satellites in the name of Luz Rios and had fourteen DIRECTV receivers associated with the account. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 132-34. Curtis testified that he purchased the residential account from Rios in order to provide DIRECTV programming to residents in the Bahamas. Decl. of Jermaine Curtis dated Oct. 31, 2016 [Doc. 170-13] (“Curtis Decl.”) ¶ 6. DIRECTV was able to verify that the equipment associated with this account was being viewed in the Bahamas through a series of on-screen displays encouraging the viewers to call DIRECTV, which elicited a call from an individual confirming that he lived in the Bahamas and that he purchased DIRECTV programming through Curtis' company, Total Electronics. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 136-37. II. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. Legal Standard *5 Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions,” and cannot be made by the district court in considering whether to grant summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); see also Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999). If a movant meets its burden, the party opposing summary judgment must present evidence that shows there is a genuine issue of material fact or that the movant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, “and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn” in favor of that opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; see also Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm't, 193 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999). A fact is “material” only if it can affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing legal principles. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. “If the record presents factual issues, the court must not decide them; it must deny the motion and proceed to trial.” Herzog, 193 F.3d at 1246. However, “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,” summary judgment for the moving party is proper. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. B. DIRECTV'S Motion for Partial Summary Judgment DIRECTV contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law against Defendants MK Hospitality, Luz Rios, Manish Karamshi, Star Satellites, Johny Thomas, and Smita Shere on its claims under § 605(a) of the Federal Communications Act (Count I) and against Defendants MK Hospitality, and Star Satellites on its claims for breach of contract (Count IV). 1. Federal Communications Act Claims Count I of DIRECTV'S Amended Complaint alleges a violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), which prohibits both the unauthorized interception of radio communications and the giving of assistance to others attempting to intercept unauthorized radio communications. Cable/Home Commc'n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 847 (11th Cir. 1990). The act permits enforcement in a civil action by “any person aggrieved” as a result of a violation of paragraph (a).[11] 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(a). 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) plainly states that a person violates the statute by “receiving,” “assisting in receiving,” or “intercept[ing]” electronic transmissions without proper authorization. Thus, to prevail on its pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DIRECTV must prove that Defendants assisted in the unauthorized reception of DIRECTV's satellite transmissions. Because Defendants have made different arguments in response to DIRECTV'S Motion and because the factual record varies with respect to the Defendants, the Court will address them separately. a. Defendants Rios and MK Hospitality *6 Without citing to any record evidence, Defendants Rios and MK Hospitality argue that a genuine issue of material fact “exists as to the extent to which Luz Rios was in control of her own e-mail accounts.” Defs. MK Hospitality and Luz Rios' Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s MPSJ [Doc. 187] (“MK Hospitality Resp.”) at 4-5. The Court disagrees. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Defendants Rios and MK Hospitality, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of fact and DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to liability on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim against Defendants Rios and MK Hospitality. The undisputed evidence is that (1) six commercial accounts were created by individuals, including Rios, using the MK Hospitality user identification and password; (2) these accounts were created with the names of fictitious entities which were not the intended recipient of the DIRECTV satellite programming; (3) the addresses on the accounts were not the locations where the programming was ultimately viewed; (4) these accounts were created for the express purpose of selling them to entities in the Bahamas so that those entities could then unlawfully resell them to Bahamians; and (5) at least one of these accounts was sold to Bahamian resellers, which led to the unauthorized transmission of DIRECTV'S satellite programming in the Bahamas. It is also undisputed that Luz is the owner and operator of MK Hospitality and executed the Independent Retailer Agreement on behalf of and as the owner of MK Hospitality. With regard to at least one of the six MK Hospitality accounts, Account No. 40653007 for a fictitious company named Elite LLC, the Order Confirmation produced by Garraway coupled with his deposition testimony confirms that Garraway (a Bahamian dealer) purchased this account from Rios and MK Hospitality and that it was used to provide unauthorized DIRECTV satellite programming to individuals in the Bahamas. See Order Confirmation for Elite LLC; Garraway Dep. at 119-23. There is additional undisputed evidence supporting the conclusion that Rios and MK Hospitality were involved in the underlying alleged scheme and assisted in the unauthorized reception of DIRECTV'S satellite transmission in the Bahamas. See, e.g., Garraway Dep. at 69-70 (confirming that Rios and MK Hospitality set up and activated commercial accounts that they sold to entities in the Bahamas) 83-84 (same); Decl. of Sean Ian Davis dated Nov. 4, 2016 [Doc. 170-1] (“Davis Decl.”) ¶¶ 11-15 (attaching e-mails confirming same); Curtis Decl. ¶¶ 6-9 (testifying that he paid Rios to create commercial accounts, for DIRECTV equipment, and to communicate with DIRECTV so that the company would not be aware that its programming was airing in the Bahamas). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to liability on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim against Defendants Rios and MK Hospitality. b. Defendant Karamshi The evidence against Defendant Karamshi is less clear. DIRECTV asserts that Karamshi was married to Rios, was a principal who oversaw the operations of MK Hospitality (a company that bears his initials and in which he had a financial interest), and that the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to establish that he assisted in the provision of unauthorized satellite transmission to the Bahamas. Pl.'s Br. at 18-19; Pl.'s Reply at 12 n. 9. Karamshi argues, among other things, that there is a genuine issue of material fact with regard to his involvement in the underlying scheme. Def. Manish Karamshi's Mem. of Law in Supp. of his Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s MPSJ [Doc. 188] (“Karamshi's Resp.”) at 6-9. As explained below, the Court agrees with Karamshi. *7 DIRECTV cites to the declaration of a former employee of MK Hospitality, Sean Davis, to explain that it was Davis who pitched the opportunity to sell DIRECTV equipment and programming in the Bahamas to Rios and Karamshi and that they “were eager to pursue the opportunity.” Davis Decl. ¶ 5. Davis contends that he introduced Rios and Karamshi to Garraway in the Bahamas and that Rios and Karamshi ultimately partnered with Thomas of Star Satellites to create the false accounts. Id. ¶¶ 6-7, 8, 17.[12] Davis states that he, along with Rios and Karamshi, sold those accounts to Garraway's company, Satellite Bahamas, and that they were all compensated by the Bahamian resellers as well as by DIRECTV. Id. Davis points out that Karamshi was the person who put Thomas and Star Satellites in touch with MK Hospitality, as the two had worked together for another DIRECTV dealer. Id. ¶ 7. DIRECTV also cites to deposition testimony from one of the Bahamain resellers, Garraway, in support of its contention that Karamshi was involved in the underlying scheme. In his deposition, Garraway characterized Karamshi as the CEO of MK Hospitality who was “in charge,” but explained that Rios handled the day-to-day operation of MK Hospitality. Garraway Dep. at 84-86. Garraway testifies that, on one occasion, Karamshi contacted him to secure payment for some DIRECTV services or equipment that was provided to Garraway by an individual working for MK Hospitality. Id. at 143-47.[13] DIRECTV also relies on Garraway's deposition testimony for the proposition that a trip Garraway made to Atlanta to meet with Karamshi and Rios confirms that they had a business relationship and that Karamshi was “directly involved” in the sale of DIRECTV equipment and programming to the Bahamas. Pl.'s Br. at 18-19 (citing Garraway Dep. at 83-85, 149-54). The problem with DIRECTV's citation is that, apart from characterizing Karamshi as the CEO of MK Hospitality, this testimony does not discuss any involvement on the part of Karamshi in the sale of DIRECTV equipment and programming to the Bahamas. See e.g., Garraway Dep. at 147-49 (confirming that the “main purpose” for Garraway's visit to Atlanta was for Karamshi to pitch an entirely different business unrelated to DIRECTV). Although Karamshi admits that MK Hospitality, a company owned by his wife and for which he worked, gained financially for each DIRECTV account MK Hospitality created, see Karamshi's Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 165, and does not dispute that a post office box registered to him was listed in some accounts created by MK Hospitality and Star Satellites, the record evidence presented to the Court, viewed in a light most favorable to Karamshi, is insufficient to support Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Karamshi. This is especially true in light of other record evidence that is inconsistent with DIRECTV's arguments. For example, Karamshi contends that he was an employee for MK Hospitality, but that he was never an officer, principal, or owner. Decl. of Manish Karamshi dated Dec. 21, 2016 [Doc. 193-2] (“Karamshi Decl.”) ¶ 13. He explains that he allowed his wife and MK Hospitality to use his UPS account and post office box that he owned through another company. Id. ¶ 14. Karamshi states that his work for MK Hospitality was restricted to hospitality accounts with hotels and hospitals. Id. ¶¶ 15-16, 20. Thomas confirmed that he thought Karamshi was involved in the sale of satellite systems to hotels. Thomas Dep. at 80. Karamshi also stated that his meeting with Garraway in Atlanta was about Garraway's possible interest in his company GuestTV, not the DIRECTV business. Karamshi Decl. ¶¶ 21-23. *8 In sum, DIRECTV has presented circumstantial evidence of Karamshi's possible involvement in the underlying scheme to sell DIRECTV equipment and programming to the Bahamas, but there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Karamshi in fact participated in this scheme and assisted in the unauthorized transmission and reception of DIRECTV's satellite programming in the Bahamas. This determination involves, among other things, credibility determinations of fact witnesses that are appropriate for a jury determination. See McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1240 n. 7 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Issues of credibility and the weight afforded to certain evidence are determinations appropriately made by a finder of fact and not a court deciding summary judgment.”). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Karamshi, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that Karamshi was not involved in the alleged scheme and did not assist in the unauthorized reception of DIRECTV'S satellite transmission in the Bahamas. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as to liability on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim against Defendant Karamshi. c. Defendants Thomas and Star Satellites Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Defendants Thomas and Star Satellites, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of fact and DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to liability on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim against Defendants Thomas and Star Satellites. The undisputed evidence shows: (1) 103 commercial accounts were created by individuals using the Star Satellites user identification and password; (2) these accounts were created with the names of fictitious entities which were not the intended recipients of DIRECTV satellite programming; (3) the addresses on the accounts were not the locations where the programming was later viewed; (4) these accounts were created for the express purpose of selling them to entities in the Bahamas so that those entities could then unlawfully resell them to Bahamians; and (5) some of these accounts were in fact sold to Bahamian resellers, which led to the unauthorized transmission of DIRECTV'S satellite programming in the Bahamas. Johny Thomas admits that he signed Shere's name to the DIRECTV agreements with her express permission, that he handled all of Star Satellites's business matters, and that he was given authority to do so by Shere. It is also undisputed that fifty-four of the 103 Star Satellites commercial accounts intentionally created with false information were identified by Garraway as accounts he and his company used to resell DIRECTV programming to residents in the Bahamas. Further, with regard to the only residential account at issue in this case, Account No. 65155737 in the name of Luz Rios, it is undisputed that this account was created by individuals using the Star Satellites user identification and password and was purchased by a Bahamian reseller in order to provide DIRECTV programming to residents in the Bahamas. DIRECTV subsequently confirmed that unauthorized DIRECTV satellite programming was viewed in the Bahamas using this account. Defendant Thomas argues that there is a lack of evidence directly implicating his day-to-day involvement in the underlying scheme, that he has no knowledge of any accounts established using the Star Satellites account number, and that he never collected or received any funds from anyone offering DIRECTV services in the Bahamas. Thomas Aff. ¶¶ 19, 21. However, Thomas admits to an arrangement whereby he provided account information to the Star Satellites DIRECTV dealer so that MK Hospitality and those individuals working with MK Hospitality could create DIRECTV accounts with Star Satellites's ID and Thomas and Star Satellites could profit from the arrangement, keeping $100.00 of the $500.00 commission DIRECTV paid for the creation of those accounts. Thomas Dep. at 8, 94-96, 102, 126-27, 136-38. Thomas also acknowledged that he bore responsibility for the accuracy of information entered by others on the subscriber accounts created under the Star Satellites ID. Id. at 130, 136-38. The Court finds that Thomas's admission that he gave Star Satellites login information with the knowledge that MK Hospitality was going to use it to create subscriber accounts in exchange for a share in the revenue paid by DIRECTV, coupled with his admitted responsibility for assuring the accuracy of information entered on the subscriber accounts, is sufficient to establish as a matter of law his role in the underlying scheme and his assistance in the unauthorized reception of DIRECTV's satellite transmission in the Bahamas.[14] *9 This undisputed evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to Defendants Thomas and Star Satellites, establishes that they assisted in the unauthorized reception of DIRECTV'S satellite transmission in the Bahamas. Therefore, DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to liability on its claim pursuant to § 605 against Defendants Thomas and Star Satellites.[15] Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to liability on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim against Defendants Thomas and Star Satellites. d. Defendant Shere It is undisputed that Shere is the owner and president of Star Satellites and gave express permission for the Independent Retailer Agreement and Commercial Dealer Agreement to be executed in her name on behalf of and as the owner and president of Star Satellites. Beyond this, there is no evidence that Shere had active involvement in the underlying scheme. DIRECTV argues that because Shere signed the dealer agreements, was the owner and president of Star Satellites, and derived a direct financial benefit from the underlying scheme, she is vicariously liable for Star Satellites's violations of § 605. Pl.'s Br. at 19-20; Pl.'s Reply at 9 (citing Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Blanchard, No: 4-09-CV-100, 2010 WL 1838067, at *3 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2010); J &J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Arboleda, No. 6:09-CV-467-ORL-18DAB, 2009 WL 3490859, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2009)). However, beyond her title, there is no evidence that indicates Shere had a “right and ability to supervise” participation in the scheme at issue in this case. The only evidence before the Court regarding Shere indicates that she was the owner and president of Star Satellites, but that she had no involvement in or knowledge of the company. At this stage of the litigation, the evidence before the Court is too attenuated to establish individual liability. See Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc'ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 971 (2d Cir. 1997) (granting an individual defendant's dismissal at the close of plaintiff's case at trial where the only evidence presented was that the defendant was the president of the corporate entity that owned the infringing establishment). The two cases cited by DIRECTV are inapposite as both involved motions for default judgment where facts regarding the right and ability to supervise establishing control liability were assumed. See Blanchard, 2010 WL 1838067, at *3; Arboleda, 2009 WL 3490859, at *5. *10 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Shere, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that Shere was not involved in the alleged scheme and did not assist in the unauthorized reception of DIRECTV'S satellite transmission in the Bahamas. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as to liability on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim against Defendant Shere. 2. Breach of Contract The DIRECTV agreements are governed by California law, under which “the elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Milisic, No. 3:11-CV-66-TCB, 2012 WL 12873773, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2012) (quoting Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal. 2011)). The DIRECTV agreements with MK Hospitality and Star Satellites restricted the sale of DIRECTV equipment and services to the United States. The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that MK Hospitality and Star Satellites, through their agents, sold DIRECTV equipment and services to customers in the Bahamas, which is a material breach of the DIRECTV agreements. DIRECTV contends that this breach caused damage to DIRECTV in the form of commission payments to MK Hospitality and Star Satellites, underpayment to DIRECTV on the subscriber accounts used in the Bahamas, economic losses on the equipment sold and used in the Bahamas, and damage to DIRECTV'S goodwill and reputation from the unlawful reception of DIRECTV programming in the Bahamas. Neither MK Hospitality nor Star Satellites contest DIRECTV'S argument. See MK Hospitality Resp.; Star Satellites Resp. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to MK Hospitality and Star Satellites, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claims against MK Hospitality and Star Satellites. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to liability on its claims for breach of contract as to liability against Defendants MK Hospitality and Star Satellites.[16] 3. Damages for § 605 Claims DIRECTV seeks statutory damages in the amount of $2,389,000.00, which amount it arrives at by taking the $1,000.00 minimum amount prescribed by 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i) multiplied by the 2,389 DIRECTV receivers DIRECTV contends were activated as a result of the scheme described above. Theoretically, each receiver represented an unauthorized reception of DIRECTV'S satellite transmission in the Bahamas in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605. DIRECTV also seeks its attorney's fees and costs pursuant to § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) in an amount to be submitted to the Court in a separate application. Courts have articulated several factors to consider when determining the amount of statutory damages to be awarded for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605, including “(1) whether the defendant profited as a result of his violation; (2) whether the defendant assisted or induced others in violating the statute; (3) whether the defendant's violation was willful or flagrant; (4) whether the damage award will be sufficient to deter similar conduct; and (5) whether the damage award is comparable to awards in similar cases.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1131 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). *11 Section 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) provides: “the aggrieved party may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just....” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). “The Eleventh Circuit has not addressed a uniform formula for calculating damages under section 605.” Joe Hand Promotions v. McBroom, No. 5:09-CV-276(CAR), 2009 WL 5031580 at *4 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2009). “Some courts will award damages as a flat sum,” while other courts “award the plaintiff the license fee the defendant, based on its maximum capacity, would have paid if it had legally purchased the event for exhibition.” Id. (citing J & J Sports Productions v. Arboleda, Case No. 6:09-cv-467-Orl-18DAB, 2009 WL 3490859 at *6 (M.D. Fla. Oct.27, 2009)). Still other courts will, “[w]hen the exact number of patrons is known ... base the award on the number of patrons in the establishment who viewed the unauthorized showing multiplied by a number set by the court.” J & J Sports Productions v. Ribeiro, 562 F. Supp. 2d 498, 501-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). To recover statutory damages in this case, DIRECTV must present sufficient evidence to satisfy all elements of 47 U.S.C. § 605 as to each and every claimed violation. It is not enough to present evidence of the scheme generally and then have a witness testify in conclusory fashion as to the number of receivers as purported violations. See DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 537-38 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate the actual unauthorized appropriation of the satellite transmission under § 605, and circumstantial evidence of purchase and possession of the devices capable of transmission reception “rather than the use of those devices to intercept DTV's transmissions” is insufficient); Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1128 (“[H]ad DIRECTV alleged only that Huynh possessed a pirate-access device, this would not have been sufficient to state a claim under the plain language of § 605(a). Similarly, to establish liability under § 605(a), a plaintiff must prove that the defendant received or assisted in receiving a communication to which he was not entitled.”); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Karpinsky, 269 F. Supp. 2d 918, 926 (E.D. Mich. 2003), order vacated in part on reconsideration, 274 F. Supp. 2d 918 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (holding that evidence of possession of equipment capable of receiving satellite transmissions was insufficient standing alone to establish a violation of § 605). The Court finds that DIRECTV has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that (1) there were 2,389 receivers associated with subscriber accounts associated with the scheme described above, and (2) that the receivers were actually in use on the accounts in such a way that the unauthorized DIRECTV satellite transmissions were received in the Bahamas. First, the Court notes that the evidence presented by DIRECTV has established that there were only 103 commercial subscriber accounts created on the Star Satellites account as a part of Defendants' scheme. See Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 126 (identifying fifty-four Star Satellites commercial accounts by virtue of deposition testimony from Michael Garraway), 127-28 (identifying an additional forty-nine Star Satellites commercial accounts “based on common payment methods (including credit cards issued by foreign banks), common IP addresses used to access DIRECTV'S database for online account services, common telephone numbers used to contact DIRECTV'S Customer Service Department, and transfers of DIRECTV receivers to or from known fraudulent accounts.”). Second, the Court finds that the evidence presented in support of the proposition that 2,389 receivers were activated and used to broadcast and view the unauthorized transmissions is conclusory. See Westlake Decl. ¶¶ 62 (stating in conclusory fashion that the six MK Hospitality accounts were used to activate ninety-eight receivers without providing any explanation or evidence as to how he arrived at this number), 67 (stating in conclusory fashion that the 113 Star Satellites accounts were used to activate 2277 receivers without providing any explanation or evidence as to how he arrived at this number), 69 (stating in conclusory fashion that the Star Satellites residential accounts were used to activate fourteen receivers without providing any explanation or evidence as to how he arrived at this number). *12 DIRECTV has presented sufficient evidence to show that Accounts Nos. 65155737 and 40653007, as well as the fifty-four Star Satellites commercial accounts identified by Garraway, actually were used to resell DIRECTV programming to residents in the Bahamas and those were actually received in the Bahamas. Although the Court has found that there is sufficient evidence that unauthorized DIRECTV transmissions were broadcast to, and viewed by, Bahamian residents using the MK Hospitality and Star Satellites commercial and residential accounts described above, DIRECTV has not presented sufficient evidence to support an award of statutory damages in the amount sought. DIRECTV will be afforded an opportunity to present additional evidence to this Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order detailing the exact and correct number of subscriber accounts that were created as a result of Defendants' scheme. As to each account, DIRECTV must present evidence of how many receivers were associated with each account that is more than one witness's conclusory statement. As to each receiver, DIRECTV must present evidence that they were activated and actually used to receive DIRECTV transmissions in the Bahamas. C. Defendant Shere's Motion for Summary Judgment Defendant Shere argues that she is entitled to judgment as matter of law on all four of DIRECTV'S claims against her because: (1) DIRECTV has failed to proffer any evidence to support Defendant's alleged involvement in any of the activities described in DIRECTV'S claims of violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), and violation of O.C.G.A. § 46-5-2; (2) DIRECTV never requested the return of any items allegedly in Defendant Shere's possession prior to the commencement of this action; and (3) there is no evidence of a contract with Shere to support DIRECTV'S claim for breach of contract.[17] See Shere's MSJ at 2. Shere argues that DIRECTV's claims under § 605(a) fail “because Defendant Shere (1) did not ‘intercept’ any DIRECTV satellite programming and (2) nor did she establish any DIRECTV accounts during [Star Satellite]'s relationship with Plaintiff.” Id. at 5.[18] As stated above, the plain language of 47 U.S.C. § 605 requires DIRECTV to prove that Defendants received, assisted in receiving, or intercepted DIRECTV's satellite transmissions. Although Shere contends that there is no evidence that she “intercepted” any satellite transmission, see Shere's MSJ at 4-6, this Court finds that, as used in § 605, an “interception” of the satellite transmission is synonymous with “reception” and there is no requirement under the statute for direct evidence of an “interception” of a satellite signal. See Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 881 F.2d 983, 988 (11th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 895 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Section 605(a) of the Federal Communications Act prohibits the unauthorized third party reception of satellite transmissions intended for fee-paying subscribers.”); DIRECTV, LLC v. Shirah, No. 413-110, 2015 WL 1333966, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2015) (finding defendants liable under § 605 for the unauthorized reception of commercial satellite programming where they paid for residential service, implicitly demonstrating that no “interception” in the strict interpretation of that word is required); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. Perugini, 28 F. Supp. 3d 351, 355 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (“Case law supports the interpretation that no interception is required since the third sentence simply proscribes the unauthorized divulgence or publishing of covered communications even when they have been ‘received’ legally.”) (quotation and citation omitted).[19] *13 Shere's second argument—that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because DIRECTV failed to present any evidence that she established any subscriber accounts using the Star Satellites user ID—also is without merit. This argument ignores the existence of control person liability under § 605, which is a viable theory of liability in this case. See Blanchard, 2010 WL 1838067, at *3; McBroom, 2009 WL 5031580, at *4; Arboleda, 2009 WL 3490859, at *5. Although the facts regarding Shere's involvement in the underlying scheme to sell DIRECTV programming to the Bahamas, discussed supra in Section 1(C)(1)(d), were insufficient to carry DIRECTV'S Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Shere, the same facts, viewed in a light most favorable to DIRECTV, are sufficient to create an issue of fact as to Shere's liability. Accordingly, Shere's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to DIRECTV's Federal Communications Act claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605 against Defendant Shere.[20] III. MOTION FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT The law in the Eleventh Circuit is well established that even a pro se party is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules provide for sanctions for misconduct and for failure to comply with court orders. If a pro se litigant ignores a discovery order, he is and should be subject to sanctions like any other litigant. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). “[T]he district court may, among other sanctions, render a default judgment against the disobedient party” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(vi). Maus v. Ennis, 513 F. App'x 872, 878 (11th Cir. 2013). On December 27, 2016, this Court ordered MK Hospitality to secure representation and cited the following language from the Local Rules: that a corporation may only be represented in court by an attorney, that at attorney must sign all pleadings submitted to the court, and that a corporate officer may not represent the corporation in court unless that officer is also an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Georgia, and that failure to comply with this rule could result in a default being entered against the corporate party. LR 83.1 (E)(2)(b)(I). The Order cautioned MK Hospitality that failure to comply “may result in sanctions, up to and including the entry of default.” Order dated Dec. 27, 2106 [Doc. 196]. Defendant MK Hospitality has not complied with this Court's Order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Request for Clerk's Entry of Default as to Defendant MK Hospitality, Inc. [Doc. 209]. IV. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DIRECTV also seeks the entry of default judgment against Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra, Inc. as a sanction for their failure to respond to discovery and obey two separate orders of this Court. Specifically, Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra, Inc. asserted improper boilerplate objections[21] and provided incomplete and inaccurate responses to DIRECTV'S discovery requests regarding communications and other records related to the sale and distribution of DIRECTV programming and equipment. For example, in response to DIRECTV's Request For Production No. 22 which requested “all documents that refer or relate to your purchase, sale or distribution of DIRECTV satellite receiving equipment and/or DIRECTV satellite television programming” — Comptra, Inc. (“Comptra”) responded as follows: *14 Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Defendant further objects as this Request requires information or documents already in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it is not currently in possession of any documents responsive to this request. Defendant reserves the right to supplement its responsive should it later locate documents responsive to this request. Def. Comptra, Inc.'s Resps. to Pl.'s First Request for Production of Documents [Doc. 162-5]. Defendant Karamshi responded in an identical fashion to this same request. Def. Karamshi's Resps. to Pl.'s First Request for Production of Documents [Doc. 162-6]. Additionally, in response to an interrogatory seeking the identification of “all websites and e-mail addresses that you have used in connection with the acquisition, distribution or sale of DIRECTV satellite receiving equipment or programming,” Comptra lodged the following boilerplate objection: “Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence,” and identified only one e-mail (manish@comptra.com) and one website (comptrainc.com). Def. Comptra, Inc.'s Resps. to Pl.'s First Interrogatories [Doc. 162-9] Interrogatory No. 12. In response to the same interrogatory, Karamshi made the same boilerplate objection and identified the same e-mail address and website. Def. Karamshi's Resps. to Pl.'s First Interrogatories [Doc. 162-10] Interrogatory No. 11. A. December 31, 2015, Teleconference In response to DIRECTV's request, the Court conducted a teleconference on December 31, 2015, during which the Court: (1) reminded counsel for Defendants that boilerplate objections were not permitted; (2) expressed concern that counsel for Defendants failed to issue a litigation hold letter to her clients; (3) ordered Defendants to completely and accurately respond to DIRECTV's discovery requests; and (4) warned of possible sanctions if Defendants destroyed evidence. See Tr. of Teleconference Held on Dec. 31, 2015 [Doc. 91] at 4, 6, 11. Subsequent depositions of Rios and Karamshi taken on February 25, 2016, revealed that Defendants failed to provide full and accurate responses to DIRECTV's discovery requests and, consequently, failed to comply with this Court's oral order during the Dec. 31, 2015, teleconference. For example, contrary to its interrogatory—in which he identified only one e-mail address—Karamshi testified that Comptra used at least three additional e-mail addresses: jennyrios@comptrainc.com, manishkaramshi@gmail.com, and quicksatellite@gmail.com. Further, both Rios and Karamshi disclosed for the first time that some documents and information may not be available because company records and computer equipment had been destroyed or e-mail servers had been discontinued prior to the commencement of litigation. See, e.g., 30(b)(6) Dep. of MK Hospitality (Luz Yenny Rios) taken Feb. 25, 2016 [Doc. 162-18] at 32 (testifying that Rios's regular practice was to delete old e-mails after “a month or two.”). B. March 25, 2016, Teleconference *15 Counsel for DIRECTV brought the continued deficiencies in Defendants' discovery responses and efforts to the Court's attention during a second teleconference held on March 25, 2016. See Tr. of Teleconference Held on March 25, 2016 [Doc. 126]. During this conference, the Court noted that Defendants' search for e-mails was inadequate with regard to both the search terms used and the e-mail accounts/servers that were searched. Id. at 7-9. The excuse Defendants proffered at the first teleconference on December 31, 2015—that any e-mails sought by DIRECTV were on DIRECTV's servers and therefore not recoverable by Defendants—-was not only false, but also implausible. The Court noted that Defendants raised a new defense not mentioned in their initial discovery responses or at the December 31, 2015, teleconference—that the e-mails or records had been destroyed. Id. at 7-8. Based on the evidence presented, the Court found that Defendants' conduct was sanctionable. Id. at 7-9. However, in an effort to encourage production and advance the litigation before addressing sanctions, the Court ordered the parties to (1) develop a list of search terms to be used to search the e-mail servers and accounts that are in existence, and (2) produce a certification as to which e-mail servers and accounts are active and whether third parties have or can gain access to the e-mail servers and accounts that are no longer active.Id. at 17. C. Deficiencies in Defendants' Efforts to Comply With Discovery Obligations and this Court's Order In partial compliance with this Court's Order, it appears that the parties were able to develop a list of search terms and that some documents were produced subsequent to the March 25, 2016, teleconference, presumably after searching existing e-mail servers and accounts with those search terms. It appears that Comptra and Karamshi produced seventy-seven pages of additional e-mails from the manishkaramshi@gmail.com e-mail address on April 16, 2016. “DIRECTV” appears in all of the e-mails. The Court agrees with DIRECTV that the fact this term appears in all of the produced e-mails indicates that Karamshi's prior sworn testimony—that he previously searched manishkaramshi@gmail.com for this term—was false. In addition to the e-mails produced, counsel for Comptra and Karamshi represented that the following e-mail addresses were inactive and inaccessible: • comptrainc@gmail.com, • manish@comptrainc.com, and • jennyrios@comptrainc.com. See Letter dated April 6, 2016 [Doc. 162-21] at 3. Apparently, counsel for Karamshi and Comptra did not provide any certification as to whether third parties have or can gained access to the e-mail servers and accounts that are no longer active. Counsel also stated that the following e-mail addresses were inactive and inaccessible: • quicksatellite@gmail.com, • manish@guestinteractive.com, • manishkaramshi@gmail.com, and • manishkaramshi@hotmail.com. Id. It does not appear that counsel for Karamshi and Comptra provided any certification indicating whether the active e-mail servers and accounts were searched using the agreed-upon terms. On June 3, 2016, Rios and MK Hospitality produced an additional 164 pages of e-mails from the mkhospitality@gmail.com address. Like the supplemental production from Karamshi and Comptra, the word “DIRECTV” appears in all of the e-mails, which indicates that Rios's previous sworn testimony that she searched mkhospitality@gmail.com for this term was false. There is no indication that counsel for Rios and MK Hospitality provided any certification (1) identifying the e-mail servers and accounts that are active, (2) indicating whether third parties have or can gain access to the e-mail servers and accounts that are no longer active, or (3) indicating that the active e-mail servers and accounts were searched using the terms agreed upon.[22] In addition, the 164 pages of e-mails from Rios include two responsive e-mails March 2013 between her and Garraway of Satellite Bahamas. See e-mail dated March 6, 2013, from Rios to Garraway [Doc. 162-24] at 3 (identifying two DIRECTV accounts and asking Rios's co-worker to activate the accounts); e-mail dated March 15, 2013, from Rios to Garraway [Doc. 162-24] at 4 (identifying four DIRECTV accounts and asking Rios's co-worker to activate the accounts). This evidence shows that Rios's prior sworn testimony that responsive e-mails were no longer in her possession because she regularly deleted e-mails after a “month or two” was false. *16 In addition to Defendants' deficient efforts and responses detailed above, DIRECTV learned of an additional e-mail address belonging to Karamshi and in a document produced by a third-party, MediaWorks. The production included emails that had the term “DIRECTV” and included e-mails to and from Karamshi at the manishkaramshi@gmail.com and manish@guestinteractive.com e-mail addresses. This production also included e-mails from Rios at the jennyrios@guestinteractive.com e-mail address, including e-mails sent in 2016. D. Analysis Rule 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes a court to strike a defendant's answer and enter default judgment against it. The rule provides in relevant part: If a party or a party's officer ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery ... the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following: (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 16 (f) (stating that a Court “may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney: ... fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.”). Rule 37 gives district courts “broad discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions for violation of discovery orders; however, this discretion is guided by judicial interpretation of the rule. For example, a default judgment sanction requires a willful or bad faith failure to obey a discovery order.” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Societe Internationale pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212 (1958)); Rasmussen v. Cent. Florida Council Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 412 F. App'x 230, 232 (11th Cir. 2011). “Violation of a discovery order caused by simple negligence, misunderstanding, or inability to comply will not justify a Rule 37 default judgment or dismissal.” Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542 (citations omitted). “Rule 37 sanctions such as dismissal or entry of default judgment to be appropriate, however, only where the party's conduct amounts to flagrant disregard and willful disobedience of discovery orders.” United States v. Certain Real Prop. Located at Route 1, Bryant, Ala., 126 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation and citation omitted). “[T]he Supreme Court has interpreted the Rule 37 requirement of a ‘just’ sanction to represent ‘general due process restrictions on the court's discretion.’ ” Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542 (citing Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., v. Campagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982)). “[T]he severe sanction of a dismissal or default judgment is appropriate only as a last resort, when less drastic sanctions would not ensure compliance with the court's orders.” Id. (citing Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F.2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988)). Because Defendants repeatedly have failed to comply with their discovery obligations in this case and with this Court's Orders, the Court finds that sanctions against Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra are warranted. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra shall pay DIRECTV's reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with the following activities: (1) the December 31, 2015, teleconference; (2) the February 25, 2016, depositions of Karamshi and Rios; (3) the forensic examination of MK Hospitality's and Comptra's computer equipment; (4) the March 25, 2016, teleconference; (5) efforts to conduct discovery against Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra subsequent to the the March 25, 2016 '23 teleconference; and (6) the filing of the present Motion for Sanctions.[23] *17 It is further ORDERED that, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra shall provide complete and accurate supplemental responses to all of DIRECTV's discovery requests served to date. Counsel for Defendants Karamshi, Rios, MK Hospitality, and Comptra shall also provide as to each defendant: • a certification detailing any and all e-mail addresses/servers they have used in conjunction with the sale and distribution of DIRECTV programming and equipment; • with regard to the e-mail addresses/servers that are still active, a certification that the e-mail addresses/servers were searched by an information technology professional using the agreed-upon list of search terms, the name and company name of that individual, the date the search took place, and a list of the documents retrieved as a result of the search; • with regard to the e-mail addresses/servers that are inactive, a certification detailing the efforts made by Defendants and counsel to contact third-party entities (web server vendors etc.) that may be able to perform searches on the servers to the extent they are accessible, including a list of the names of those third parties and the dates they were contacted; and • with regard to the e-mail address/servers that are inactive, a certification detailing when the e-mail address/servers went inactive and an explanation as to why. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in further sanctions. V. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc 168] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.[24] DIRECTV's Motion is GRANTED as to: (1) its Federal Communications Act claims (Count I) against Defendants MK Hospitality, Inc., Luz Rios, Star Satellites & Communications Inc., and Johny Thomas; and (2) its breach of contract claims (Count IV) against Defendants MK Hospitality, Inc., and Star Satellites & Communications Inc. DIRECTV's Motion is DENIED as to its Federal Communications Act claims (Count I) against Defendants Manish Karamshi and Smita Shere. As DIRECTV is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to liability on its Federal Communications Act claims (Count I) against Defendants MK Hospitality, Inc., Luz Rios, Star Satellites & Communications Inc., and Johny Thomas, it is further ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, DIRECTV shall file a memorandum detailing its alleged damages along with supporting documentation and authority in compliance with the requirements of this Order. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' response to Plaintiff's submission shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of DIRECTV's submission. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Smita Shere's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 169] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Clerk's Entry of Default as to Defendant MK Hospitality, Inc. [Doc. 209] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 162] is GRANTED as specified in this Order. Defendants MK Hospitality, Inc. and Rios's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 163] is DENIED AS MOOT, and Defendants Karamshi and Comptra, Inc.'s Motion for a Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 166] is DENIED AS MOOT. *18 IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2017. Footnotes [1] It appears as though DIRECTV filed a group of exhibits in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment separate from the actual motion [Doc. 168] which the Clerk docketed as a separate motion. See [Doc. 170]. However, all of the exhibits are in support of the initial motion [Doc. 168]. Therefore, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate the submission of the latter duplicate entry [Doc. 170]. [2] Contrary to the allegations in the Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's opening brief, Plaintiff has clarified that the breach of contract claims are directed only to the corporate Defendants, MK Hospitality and Star Satellites. Reply Br. in Supp. of Pl.'s MPSJ [Doc. 200] (“Pl.'s Reply”). [3] As this case is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence presented by the parties in the light most favorable to non-moving parties and has drawn all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving parties. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Sunbeam TV Corp. v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 711 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2013). In addition, the Court has excluded assertions of facts that are immaterial or presented as arguments or legal conclusions or any fact not supported by citation to evidence (including page or paragraph number). LR 56.1B(1), NDGa. Further, the Court accepts as admitted those facts in the moving parties' statements that have not been specifically controverted with citation to the relevant portions of the record by the opposing parties. LR 56.1B(2), NDGa.; see Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Doc. 168-2] (“Pl.'s SUMF”); Defs.'Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF [Doc. 189-2] (“Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF”); Def. Karamshi's Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF [Doc. 191] (“Karamshi's Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF”). [4] Neither the Independent Retailer Agreement dated September 4, 2012, nor the Commercial Dealer Agreement dated March 11, 2013, contains Rios's signature. Instead, both have “Luz Rios” typed in the signature block. [5] Thomas states that Star Satellites was formed by Shere in 2005 “in order for [Thomas] to register the business to become an authorized dealer for DirecTV and Dish Network” and that he “received” the company in its entirety in 2012 “through Smita Shere signing over the company to [Thomas].” Thomas Aff. ¶¶ 2-3. He contends he “was given full authorization to handle all business matters in regard to Star Satellites, Inc. by Smita Shere.” Id. ¶ 5. When questioned about the arrangement, Thomas explained that Shere formed the company for him because he was not a legal resident and unable to form a company. Dep. of Johny G. Thomas taken April 20, 2016 [Doc. 171-4] (“Thomas Dep.”) at 12-13. Thomas avers that he never once discussed the business affairs of Star Satellites with Shere. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. This is consistent with Defendant Shere's representations. See Aff. in Supp of Mot. for Summ. J. for Def. Smita Shere dated Nov. 11, 2016 [Doc. 177]. [6] The Court notes that DIRECTV's SUMF cites to an incorrect provision; the section of the Commercial Dealer Agreement dealing with this provision is § 2.11(c). [7] See Dep. of Michael Garraway taken March 17, 2016 [Doc. 171-3] (“Garraway Dep.”) at 120 (explaining that DirecTV had a database which authorized dealers to log in using their unique dealer identification numbers and passwords to create DirecTV subscriber accounts). [8] Karamshi disputes the factual assertion that MK Hospitality and Star Satellites created subscriber accounts using false subscriber names and addresses, but does not provide any citation to the relevant portions of the record in support of his position. Karamshi's Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 108. Pursuant to LR 56.1B(2), NDGa., this fact and Plaintiff's other factual assertions to which Karamshi asserts a bare objection are deemed admitted as to Karamshi. Star Satellites, Shere, and Thomas also dispute this factual assertion, contending that Star Satellites “did not create fraudulent accounts;” however, Thomas admits that (1) the subscriber accounts were created with Star Satellites's DirecTV login information, (2) the login information was provided to MK Hospitality and Rios for the express purpose of creating subscriber accounts under the Star Satellites user ID, and (3) they benefitted financially from the creation of each of the subscriber accounts by retaining a portion of the commission provided by DirecTV and all of the residual payments from DirecTV. Thomas Dep. at 52-55, 97-102. [9] Karamshi disputes all of Plaintiff's assertions of fact related to the subscriber accounts alleged to have been created by MK Hospitality. See Karamshi's Resp. to Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 108-19. To the extent he provides any basis for disputing these factual assertions, Karamshi asserts the following form objection: “This is a legal conclusion to which DirecTV does not have sufficient evidence to conclude.” Id. Karamshi's objection is without merit as DirecTV has presented uncontroverted evidence in support of its position, including evidence from David Westlake, a DirecTV investigator, testimonial evidence from some of the participants in the underlying scheme, as well as documentary evidence. See Decl. of David Westlake dated Nov. 7, 2016 [Doc. 168-3] (“Westlake Decl.”). [10] Although DIRECTV contends there were 113 Star Satellites commercial accounts, a review of DIRECTV's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and underlying evidence appears to reveal that there are only 103. See Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 126 (identifying fifty-four Star Satellites commercial accounts by virtue of deposition testimony from Michael Garraway), 127-28 (identifying an additional forty-nine Star Satellites commercial accounts “based on common payment methods (including credit cards issued by foreign banks), common IP addresses used to access DirecTV's database for online account services, common telephone numbers used to contact DirecTV's Customer Service Department, and transfers of DirecTV receivers to or from known fraudulent accounts.”). DIRECTV's attempt to clarify the numbers, see Reply Br. in Supp. of Pl.'s MPSJ at 14 n.1 1, appears to use the same faulty math. [11] A “person aggrieved” is defined as “any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication ... including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3) permits any person aggrieved by such a violation to file a civil action seeking injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorney fees. [12] The Court notes that the Davis declaration details specific activities that he and others associated with MK Hospitality undertook in furtherance of this scheme, but is silent as to any involvement from Karamshi. Davis Decl. ¶¶ 9-15, 18-21. [13] Garraway's testimony on this point is far from clear. He indicated that he made several payments directly to Karamshi, that they could have been related to Dish Network services, but that at least one was related to DIRECTV services or equipment. Id. at 147. [14] The Court notes that this undisputed evidence also is sufficient to support a finding of control liability under 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. McBroom, No. 5:09-CV-276(CAR), 2009 WL 5031580, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2009) (finding liability for individual defendant where he was officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of the entity which violated § 605, based on a showing that he had a “right and ability to supervise the violations, and that he had a strong financial interest in such activities.”) (citation omitted). [15] Defendants Star Satellites and Thomas also argue that Plaintiff's Motion fails because there is no evidence that Defendants “intercepted” any of DIRECTV's transmissions. Defs. Star Satellites & Communications, Inc.'s and Johny Thomas's Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s MPSJ [Doc. 189] (“Star Satellites Resp.”) at 5-6 (citing Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Freedom Elecs., Inc., 897 F. Supp. 1454, 1459 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (“Defendants violated § 605 ... of the Communications Act by manufacturing, modifying, selling and distributing converter-decoders to plaintiff's cable television subscribers, knowing, having reason to know and intending that their devices would be used to intercept and receive cable television services and programming without plaintiff's authorization.”)). This argument is without merit. As is explained in more detail in Section 1(D) infra, the plain language of § 605 requires the plaintiff to prove only that Defendants assisted in receiving or intercepted DirecTV's satellite transmissions and, as used in § 605, an “interception” of the satellite transmission is synonymous with “reception.” See Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 881 F.2d 983, 988 (11th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 895 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1990). [16] DIRECTV acknowledges that issues of fact exist as to the amount of damages and does not seek summary judgment as to damages on its breach of contract claims. See Pl.'s Br. at 25 n. 12. [17] DIRECTV represents that its claims for conversion and breach of contract are not directed to Defendant Shere in her individual capacity and stipulates to the dismissal of those claims against Defendant Shere. See DIRECTV'S Resp. to Def. Shere' Mot. For Summ. J. [Doc. 186] (“DIRECTV's Resp.”) at 14-15. [18] Although Shere couches her argument in terms of DIRECTV's allegations failing to state a cognizable claim, id. at 3, 5-6, the Court will analyze the argument under the motion for summary judgment standard. [19] The Court notes that Karamshi makes this same argument in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against him. For the same reasons, the Court finds this argument unavailing. [20] Both DIRECTV and Shere acknowledge that Plaintiff's Federal Communications Act claim under § 605 is “parallel in substance and form” to DIRECTV's claim under O.C.G.A. § 46-5-2. See Def. Shere's Reply in Supp. of her MSJ [Doc. 201] at 3 (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Wright, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1054 (N.D. Ga. 2004)); DIRECTV's Resp. at 14 (same). Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated with regard to Shere's Motion as to DIRECTV's claims under § 605(a), Shere's Motion as to DIRECTV's claim under O.C.G.A. § 46-5-2 fails. [21] See Standing Order [Doc. 9] § II(D)(ii) (“Boilerplate objections in response to discovery requests are strictly prohibited. Parties should not carelessly invoke the usual litany of rote objections; i.e., attorney-client privilege, work-product immunity from discovery, overly broad/unduly burdensome, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”). [22] The Court notes that two of the e-mail addresses belatedly identified by Rios during her deposition on February 25, 2016 (jennyrios@guestinteractive.com and sales@guestinteractive.com) appear to use the same server that counsel for Comptra and Karamshi indicated still was active. See Letter dated April 6, 2016. [23] DIRECTV shall file a separate motion detailing the attorney's fees and costs incurred and demonstrating the connection of those attorney's fees and costs to the grounds for the sanction award. [24] The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate the submission of the latter duplicate entry on the docket [Doc. 170].