The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya B. McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge
Before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents (doc. no. 19), to which defendants filed no response. A hearing on this motion took place on January 13, 2011. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
In this civil action, plaintiffs, Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. ("Coach"), sue defendants Gata Corporation ("Gata"), Martin Taylor, and John Does 1 - 20 (collectively "defendants") alleging numerous trademark and copyright violations. Coach alleges that Gata and Martin Taylor own and manage a flea market known as the Derry Flea Market ("Flea Market"), located in Derry, New Hampshire, and that the Flea Market has been and continues to be a "hot-bed" for the sale of counterfeit merchandise, including imitation Coach purses, handbags, scarves, and other items.
On August 23, 2010, Coach issued Gata a request for the production of documents and things (doc. no. 19-2) which contained twenty-six separately numbered requests. Having received no response to its request, Coach inquired of Martin Taylor about it at his September 30, 2010, deposition:
Q. Do you understand that your responses to these were due Monday of this week?
Q. So you haven't done anything at this point?
Q. And it would be fair to say that you haven't either yourself or through your attorney served any responses to these requests, correct?
Doc. No. 19-4, at 27. During that deposition, counsel for Coach stated his intent to continue the deposition upon receipt of the requested documents. Id. at 28.*fn1
On October 7, 2010, still having received no response to the request, Coach contacted defendants' counsel in an effort to inquire as to the status of the requested documents. Doc. No. 19-3. Defendant did not respond to this inquiry. Id.
In accordance with the informal discovery procedure outlined by the court in its order dated July 22, 2010 (doc. no. 17), on October 19, 2010, Coach contacted this court's case manager to place the discovery issue in front of the court for informal resolution. Defendant did not timely respond to this court's informal attempts to schedule the matter for resolution via a telephone conference. Coach ultimately filed the instant motion to place the matter before this court for formal ruling.
On October 27, 2010, defendant sent Coach a written response to its request, and identified documents under its custody and control responsive to certain of Coach's individual requests (doc. no. 19-5). In addition, defendant objected to request no. 4 as overly broad and burdensome. Although defendant indicated it possessed documents relevant to 7 of the requests, defendant attached no documents to its written response. As of December 15, 2010, the date Coach ...