Integrated Sports Media & Entertainment PPV, LLC v. Livecast 365, LLC, et al Case No. 2:22-cv-00980-DSF-JC United States District Court, C.D. California Filed September 20, 2023 Counsel Keith W. Berglund, Gregory A. Lehrmann, The Berglund Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Integrated Sports Media & Entertainment PPV, LLC. Chooljian, Jacqueline, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(B) (DOCKET NO. 114) *1 On the morning of June 9, 2023, the Magistrate Judge granted the Motion of Plaintiff Integrated Sports Media & Entertainment PPV, LLC's (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Colin Nix Defendants to Engage in Discovery Process and for Sanctions (Docket No. 103) and ordered Defendants Grover Henry Colin Nix and One Palm Group, LLC (collectively “Nix Defendants”) to produce to Plaintiff responses without objection to Plaintiff's interrogatories and document requests directed to the Nix Defendants and to produce all documents in their possession, custody or control responsive to such document requests and ordered the Nix Defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $9,625, all within fourteen (14) days, or by such later date to which the parties might agree in writing that is consistent with the discovery cut-off (“June Order”). On the evening of June 9, 2023, the Nix Defendants and Crown Stone Partners, Inc. filed a Motion for FRCP Rule 11 Sanctions Regarding Violations of California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4 and Rule 8, in the Unethical Gathering of Witness Evidence (“Motion for Sanctions”) which was set for hearing before the District Judge on July 10, 2023. (Docket No. 110). On June 23, 2023, the Nix Defendants and Crown Stone Partners, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Relief Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b) (“Defendants' Motion”) which was originally noticed for hearing before the District Judge on July 24, 2023, but was redirected to the Magistrate Judge and submitted for decision. (Docket Nos. 114, 124). Defendants' Motion essentially requests that the June Order “be held in abeyance until after consideration of Defendants' [then] pending Rule 11 motion, which [was then] scheduled to be heard by [the District Judge] on July 10, 2023.” (Defendants' Motion at 7). On June 29, 2023, the District Judge denied the Motion for Sanctions. (Docket No. 117). On July 8, 2023, the Moving Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking to appeal the District Judge's denial of the Motion for Sanctions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”). (Docket No. 119). On August 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit dismissed such appeal for failure to prosecute. (Docket No. 128). Defendants' Motion is denied and the Nix Defendants – who appear to already be in violation of the June Order – are ordered forthwith to comply with the June Order, to produce to the discovery called for by the June Order, and to pay the sanctions imposed by the June Order. First, in light of the District Judge's denial of the Motion for Sanctions and the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal of such denial for failure to prosecute, Defendants' Motion – which, as noted above, essentially requests that the June Order be held in abeyance until the Motion for Sanctions was resolved – is moot and is denied as such. Second, aside from being moot, Defendants' Motion offers no viable basis to reconsider the June Order and is independently denied on the merits. *2 The Court again cautions the Nix Defendants and their counsel that their failure to comply with the June Order or this Order and/or any further failure to comply with their discovery obligations will subject them to potential additional monetary sanctions and non-monetary sanctions, as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), including the issuance of a recommendation or order (1) directing that the matters embraced in this Order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (2) prohibiting the Nix Defendants from opposing specified claims or supporting their defenses or from introducing designated matters into evidence; (3) striking the Nix Defendants' pleadings in whole or in part; and (4) rendering a default judgment against the Nix Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). IT IS SO ORDERED.