DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES, No. 1:2015cv00874 - Document 23 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 8/25/2016; that Plaintiffs' motion (Docket Entry 21 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Levander Jones shall respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on or before September 15, 2016. Defendant shall also produce initials disclosures to Plaintiffs on or before September 15, 2016. (Sheets, Jamie)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DISH NETWORK L.L.C. et al v. JONES Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DISH NET!øORK L.L.C., et aI., Plaintiffs, v LE,VANDE,RJONE,S, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1,:1,5CY874 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE TUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC's (collectively "DISH Network" or "Plaintiffs") Motion to Compel Defendant's Discovery Responses and Disclosures. Q)ocket Entry 21,.) Defendant Levandet Jones, pro se, has not filed a response. For the following teasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion to compel and order Defendant to tespond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. I. BACKGROUND DISH Network filed this action against Defendant alleging violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,1.7 U.S.C. S 1201 et Mq., based upon PlaintifPs alleged tafficking in servet passcodes tltat are designed to circumvent DISH Network's security system and allow access to its satellite broadcasts of video, audio and data services without paying for such sefuces. (J'ee generalþ Compl., Docket Entry 1.) DISH Network is a multi-channel video provider that provides services to millions of customers through a direct broadcast satellite system. (Id. n 9.) By payment of a subscdption fee, its customers are authorized to view 1 Dockets.Justia.com entertainment services through DISH Network. Qd.1[1,0.) DISH Netwotk alleges that it has received information showing that Defendant obtained server passcodes intended to circumvent DISH Network's security system and ultimately provide services to his customets (and fot his own personal use) without purchasing a subscdption from DISH Netwotk. (Id. ffi[ 25-28.) A.s a result, DISH Network has suffered imminent tteparable harm, including damage to its business reputations and goodwill. (1d.1129.) On May 1,7,201,6, DISH Netwotk served its First Set of Inteffogatodes and Fitst Set of Requests for Ptoduction of documents on Defendant. (I(evin A. Goldberg Decl. 1T'll 3-4, Docket Entry 21,-2;Exs.1-3, Docket Entry 21.-3 at1,-1,6.) Defendant's response was dueJune 20,201,6. Defendant's initial disclosutes wete due on May 31.,2016. To date, Defendant has not provided disclosures or a response to DISH Network's discovery requests. (Goldberg Decl. fl 11.) DISH Network made numerous attempts to obtain discovery tesponses from Defendant prior to filing the pending motion. (Exs. 5-6, Docket Etttty 21-3 at19-22.) DISH Network now seeks an otder from the Court compelling Defendant to tespond to discovery requests without objection, and Defendant has not filed II. a response to produce his initial disclosures. Q)ocket Entty 21..) to DISH Network's motion. DISCUSSION As a genetal rule, Fedetal Rule 26þ) provides genetal ptovisions tegarding the scope of discovery: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonptivileged matter that is televant to any party's claim or defense and propottional to the needs of the case, considering the imponance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant infotmation, the patties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whethet 2 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discovetable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bX1). Discovery rules are to be accotded btoad and libetal construction. See Herbert u. I-ønd0,441 U.S. 1,53,177 (1,979); and Hicknan a. Ta/0r,329 U.S. 495, 507 (1'947). Nevertheless, a court may "issue an otdef to protect of embarassment, oppfession, or undue burden a" patty or person ftom annoyance, expense. .. ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). District courts generally have broad discretion in managing discovery, including whether to grzrnt or deny a motion to compel. l-one Star 43F.3d922,929 (4th Cir. Stea,ëhoase dv Saloon, Inc. 1,995); Erdnann u. PreferedRercarcb,Inc. of u. Aþha of Virginia, Inc., Ge0rgia,852tr.2d788,792 "fl]h. p^rq or person resisting discovery, not the p^tty moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion." Carter Haghu u, Research Triangle 1ørl., No. (4th Cit. 1988). 1,:1,1.CY546,2014 ìfL 4384078, at x2 (I4.D.N.C. Sept. 3,201'4) (citation omitted)' Defendant Levander Jones is proceeding pro se. "A pro consideration of his non-lawyer status [.]" Critp u. Allied Interstate re litigant is entitled to some Collection Agenry, 1.49 F . Sopp. 3d 589, 593 (X{.D.N.C. 2016) (emphasis in onginal). However, "[a]s the United Supreme Court observed in MNeil States u. United Stateq 508 U.S. 1.06,1,1,3 (1,993),'[the Supreme Coutt] ha[s] never suggested that ptocedutal des in otdinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.' Accotdingly, pto se litigants are not entitled to a general dispensation from the imposed deadlines." Dewiît u. des of ptocedue ot court- Hatchins,309 F. Srrpp. 2d743,748-49 (À{.D.N.C . 2004) (intetnal parallel citations and second set of intetnal quotation marks omitted). J Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ^ patty may direct intertogatories to an opposing parry and "[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(bX3). Likewise, a p^fty m^y fequest upon anothef party "to produce and petmit the tequesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample" desþated documents within the responding patty's possession or conttol. Fed. R. Civ. P.34(a). compelling disclosute "[4 party may move for an ordet ot discovety" if the responding paty fails to make disclosures or to cooperte in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). DISH Netrvotk contends that Defendant has failed to satis$r his obligations under the Federal Rules and the Court's Local Rules.l (Docket Entty 21-1, at 4.) As previously noted, Defendant has not responded to contest this assertion, nor has he ptovided any excuse for his failute to produce the discovery requests. Furthermore, the Court does not find any clear basis to deem DISH Netwotk's request as impropet. Thus, Defendant must respond to DISH Netwotk's interrogatoties, and produce documents that have been requested. Defendant must also ptoduce initial disclosures to DISH the coutt with any justification Network. "Because fDefendant] has not provided fot þs] failute to respond, any objections that pefendant] may have had to the discovery requests are deemed waived." Thompson u. l{auistar,lzr:, No. 5:1.0-CY-127-FL,201,1,wL2198848,^t*2 @.D.N.C.June 6, 201,1); ¡eeFed. R. Civ. P. 33(bX4) 1 Because Defendant "fail[ed] to file a response [to Plaintiffs' motions] within the time tequired by [this Cout's Local Rules], the motion will be considered and decided s. an uncontested motion, and otdinariþ will be granted without further notice." L.R. 7.3ft); see also Kineric Conæþts,Iruc. u. ConuaTec 12r., No. 1:08CV918,201,0 WL 1.667285, at *6-8 (À{.D,N.C. Apr. 23,201,0) (unpublished) (analyzng this Court's LocalRules 7.3(f) ,7.2(a), and 7.3ft) and discussing authority supporting proposition that failute to tespond to argument amounts to concession). 4 (staung that"la)ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failute"). III. CONCLUSION Fot the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDBRED that Plaintiffs' motion (Docket Entry 21) GRANTED. Defendant Levander Jones shall tespond Interrogatories and First Set of Requests to is Plaintiffs' First Set of for Production of Documents on or before September 15, 2016. Defendant shall also produce initials disclosures to Plaintiffs on or befote September 15, 2016. L. Webster United States Magistrate Judge August 25,2076 Dutham, North Caroltta 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
