Int'l Council for Veterinary Assessment v. Anivive Lifesciences, Inc., et al Case No.: 2:24-cv-02866-JLS-BFM United States District Court, C.D. California Filed January 29, 2025 Mircheff, Brianna F., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: Fees in Connection with Motion to Compel (ECF 74) and Order to Show Cause *1 On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff International Council for Veterinary Assessment (“ICVA”) filed a Motion seeking to compel Defendants Anivive Lifesciences, Inc. and David Bruyette to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (ECF 67.) Defendants did not respond to the Motion. On January 6, 2025, the Court entered an Order compelling further responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (ECF 73.) Compliance was to occur no later than January 27, 2025. Plaintiff has notified the Court that Defendants have not supplemented their responses or document production in any way. (ECF 75.) Defendants are therefore ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions for Defendants' failure to comply with this Court's order under Rule 37(b)(2). Defendants' response to the order to show cause shall be filed no later than February 5, 2025. Notification to the Court that the further responses have been provided to Plaintiff will be a sufficient response to this Order. If Defendants fail to comply by February 5, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a motion for appropriate relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (outlining a range of sanctions for noncompliance with a discovery order); Alexso, Inc. v. Sam Shrem, No. CV 18-9554-DMG (JPRx), 2020 WL 11271944, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) (outlining procedural requirements for requests under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request for fees and costs in connection with its filing of the Motion to Compel. The Court previously granted the request, with the amount to be fixed later. (ECF 73 at 6.) Plaintiff submitted a declaration regarding its fees (ECF 74); Defendants were permitted an opportunity to respond and did not do so by the January 27, 2025, deadline. (ECF 73 at 6.) Defendants were warned that failure to file an opposition could be construed as consent to granting the full amount of the fees requested. (ECF 73 at 7.) While the request could be granted for that reason alone, the Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's fees requested and finds the hourly rates and the fees incurred for the work performed to be reasonable. For that reason (and in light of Defendants' failure to oppose the amount of the fees requested), the Court deems the request reasonable and appropriate under Rule 37(a)(5). Rule 37 states that an award of expenses may be entered against the party whose conduct occasioned the filing of the motion, the attorney advising that conduct, or both. Here, the failure to provide Plaintiff with the further discovery responses recently ordered by the Court, failure to respond to Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts on several occasions, and failure to timely oppose or respond to Plaintiff's submissions, appear to be tasks within the province of counsel advising his clients. But because the Court has no evidence as to whether counsel or his clients made the call(s) to ignore the Court's orders or to fail to comply with the rules governing the discovery process, the Court makes both responsible for Plaintiff's expenses in connection with the Motion to compel. *2 Accordingly, Defendants Anivive and David Bruyette, and their counsel, Philip C. Tencer, of Tencer Sherman LLP, are jointly and severally responsible to pay to Plaintiff the amount of $29,954.50. Such payment shall be made no later than February 7, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED.