Logtale Ltd.v. IKOR, Inc., 2013 WL 3967750 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013). In this misrepresentation case, the plaintiffs sought to compel the defendants to comply with a prior court order and compel production from a defendant who objected to the plaintiffs’ requests. In an April 2013 order, the court ordered the defendants to serve complete written responses to discovery, to produce all responsive documents within fourteen days of the order and awarded monetary sanctions under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ responses were late and incomplete, noting that the defendants had produced only 121 emails and that an objecting defendant had produced only three pages in response to a request seeking “all documents related to [the defendant’s] communications” with another company. The defendants conceded that they did not produce in a timely fashion, but the defendants’ counsel had explained that additional searches for responsive documents were underway after counsel had concerns about “gaps in the production” and “the existence of additional documents.” The court reviewed the dearth of produced documents, stated its concerns with the “inadequacy of the defendants’ search,” and ordered the defendants to produce all remaining responsive documents. The court further noted that continuing problems with production would result in an order to obtain an ediscovery vendor. Turning to the individual defendant’s objections, the court found they were untimely and waived, but ordered the parties to meet and confer to “refine the scope of production.” Finally, the court awarded the plaintiff sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees that were incurred as a result of the defendants’ conduct.