Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 3:24-cv-2166-BTM-JAC 11 DALRADA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Wyoming 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT corporation; DEPOSITION WILLIAM IAN MARTIN BONAR’S 13 TECHNOLOGY LTD., a United MOTION TO COMPEL Kingdom company and wholly owned 14 DISCOVERY FROM PLAINTIFFS subsidiary of Dalrada Financial Corp., 15 Plaintiffs, 16 [ECF. No. 88] v. 17 WILLIAM IAN MARTIN BONAR, as an 18 individual and in his official capacity; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Currently before the Court is Defendant William Ian Martin Bonar’s (“Defendant”) 22 Motion to Compel Discovery (“Mot.”) from Plaintiffs Dalrada Financial Corporation and 23 Deposition Technology Limited (“Plaintiffs”). ECF No. 88. Defendant seeks the following: 24 (a) production of Plaintiff’s privilege log; (b) production of a Human Resource 25 Investigation Report prepared by Plaintiffs’ outside counsel; (c) production of Plaintiffs’ 26 damages computations for each of their causes of action; (d) production of written 27 responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Requests for Production (“RFP”) 38-62, and 1 production of responsive documents to RFPs 52-54 and 57-62; (e) production of documents 2 and responses to Defendant’s third party document subpoena; (f) verification of Plaintiffs’ 3 responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatory Responses; (g) amendments to 4 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Responses 8, 10-18, and 20 to Defendant’s First Set of 5 Interrogatories; (h) remediation of 7,475 files Plaintiff produced that are password 6 protected or corrupted; and (i) monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees. See Mot., Exhibit 7 (“Exh.”) H, at 2-4. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. 8 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUD 9 At bottom, this order hinges on the parties’ obligations under both this District’s 10 Civil Local Rules and the operative Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre- 11 Trial Proceedings (the “Scheduling Order”), ECF No. 46, and the Defendant’s failures to 12 comply with them. Thus, the Court will only outline the procedural background relevant to 13 the Scheduling Order and what the parties have done to comply with that order. 14 On September 19, 2025, the Court filed its Scheduling Order. ECF No. 46. The 15 Scheduling Order stated that “[a]ll fact discovery must be completed by all parties by 16 August 28, 2026.” ECF No. 46, at 2. For almost the next calendar year, the parties 17 proceeded with discovery, filing joint motions for protective orders and electronic 18 discovery protocol. ECF Nos. 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 60. 19 On August 27, 2026, Defendant’s counsel contacted Magistrate Judge Janet A. 20 Cabral’s chambers, seeking to file an ex parte Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (the “ex 21 parte”). ECF No. 82. The ex parte—filed one day before the fact discovery deadline— 22 sought to extend the fact discovery cutoff “by an additional six months.” ECF No. 82, at 6. 23 In support of the requested extension, Defendant outlined a series of lengthy, ongoing 24 discovery disputes dating back to Defendant’s RFPs served on Plaintiffs on November 28, 25 2025. See id., at 3-5. Aside from a “discovery conference call with [Judge Major’s] court 26 clerk Fang Bu on April 1, 2026[,]”1 Defendant made no additional efforts to inform the 27 1 Court of these discovery disputes prior to the filing of this ex parte. Id., at 3. 2 Following the filing of the ex parte, the Court set a remote Discovery Conference on 3 September 2, 2026, at 1:30 pm. ECF No. 83. At the Discovery Conference, the Court 4 ordered the parties to meet and confer by September 4, 2026, regarding any outstanding 5 discovery disputes and that if the parties wanted to bring any discovery disputes to the 6 Court’s attention, they must do so by September 4, 2026, in a manner that complies with 7 Judge Cabral’s Chambers Rules. ECF No. 86. The Court set an additional Status 8 Conference for September 8, 2026, at 10:00 am. Id. However, due to confusion surrounding 9 when the Status Conference was being held, Defendant’s counsel did not appear for the 10 September 8, 2026, Status Conference. See ECF No. 87. Shortly after contacting chambers 11 to discuss the confusion and absence, Defendant filed this present Motion. ECF No. 88. By 12 order filed on September 9, 2026, the Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s ex parte 13 request for a six-month extension of all dates in the case. ECF No. 89. This current motion 14 remains. 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, “a party may move for an order 17 compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). However, “[t]he Court will 18 entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., unless counsel will 19 have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 20 26.1(a). Motions to compel discovery “are referred to the magistrate judge assigned to the 21 case[,]” and this Court’s Chambers Rules require counsel to raise any and all discovery 22 disputes “within 45 days of the event giving rise to the dispute.” Janet A. Cabral Civ. 23 Chambers R. § III(D) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026).2 “Parties seeking to compel discovery 24 25 counsel assured the court [that] the issues raised on February 13, 2026 and subsequent meet and confer 26 meetings would be addressed within 30 days of the discovery conference call.” ECF 82, at 3. Even so, as discussed further below, Defendant took no action to bring this discovery dispute to the Court’s attention 27 prior to the August 27, 2026 ex parte. 1 must do so in a timely manner.” Greer v. County of San Diego, No. 19-cv-378-JO-DEB, 2 2022 WL 16951840, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2022) (collecting cases to show that motions 3 to compel are denied if they are not timely filed.) 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Defendant failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements laid out in this 6 District’s Civil Local Rules and the Court’s Order on September 2, 2026. Additionally, 7 Defendant’s motion is untimely pursuant to the Scheduling Order and under the Court’s 8 Chambers Rules. 9 A. Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Civil Local Rule’s Meet and 10 Confer Requirements 11 In his Motion to Compel, Defendant states that “[t]he Court gave leave for Defendant 12 to file a motion to compel on September 2, 2026.” Mot., at 27. That is incorrect. Instead, 13 on September 2, 2026, the Court ordered the parties “to meet and confer by September 4, 14 2026,” and the Court set a follow-up status conference on September 8, 2026. ECF No. 86. 15 Additionally, Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ counsel showed a “willingness to satisfy 16 most of the [discovery] issues raised in this motion.” Mot., at 27. This appears to understate 17 the status of the disputed discovery. Although not provided as an exhibit to the current 18 motion, in preparation for the September 8, 2026, discovery status conference defense 19 counsel, on September 4, 2026, sent the Court an email summarizing the parties’ meet and 20 confer discussion from that date and outlining the outstanding discovery issues. In that 21 email, defense counsel represented that Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide amended 22 responses and additional discovery on September 9, 11 and 16, 2026, and that Defendant’s 23 counsel agreed to those dates. 24 Civil Local Rule 26.1 reads, “[t]he Court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 25 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., unless counsel will have previously met and conferred 26 27 Scheduling Order itself required that discovery motions “be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer or response which becomes the subject of the dispute or the passage of a discovery due 1 concerning all disputed issues.” S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 26.1(a) (emphasis added). 2 A court may deny a motion to compel because of a party’s failure to comply with 3 meet and confer requirements. See Access Biomedical Diagnostics Labs, Inc. v. American 4 State Ins., No. 04-CV-1979 LAB (CAB), 2006 WL 8455247, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan 6, 2006) 5 (denying Defendants’ motion to compel “for failure to comply with the meet and confer 6 requirement” outlined under the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); 7 see also Hendon v. California State Senate, No. 21-cv-505-RSH-MDD, 2023 WL 8 2620147, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2023) (“The failure to comply with the requirement to 9 meet and confer in good faith may by itself be grounds for denial of a motion to compel.” 10 (citing Robinson v. Potter, 453, 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2006)). 11 Further, the language of Local Rule 26.1 is clear—the discovery issues must actually 12 be in dispute. S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 26.1(a). Courts are not in the habit of granting motions 13 to compel for presently undisputed, yet possibly anticipated, discovery issues. See Rohwer 14 v. Warner Bros. Discover, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-1284-RSL, 2025 WL 3628626, at *1 (W.D. 15 Wash. Dec. 15, 2025) (“Discovery motions – whether to compel production or for a 16 protective order – presuppose the existence of a dispute.”); see also Farvela v. Dzurenda, 17 No. 2:23-cv-1666-RFB-MDC, 2025 WL 2806710, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2025) (A party 18 “should not file a motion to compel if [the other party] agree[s] to produce the evidence 19 requested and the parties have no discovery dispute.”); see also Access Biomedical 20 Diagnostics Labs, Inc., 2006 WL 8455247, at *1 (finding Defendant’s motion to compel 21 “was filed prematurely,” and denying recovery of Defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs 22 based on this prematurity.) Yet, according to Defendant’s own representations, Plaintiffs 23 agreed to satisfy most of the outstanding discovery issues. Mot., at 27. As there are no 24 current discovery disputes, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. 25 B. Timing of Defendant’s Motion 26 While Defendant’s failure to meet and confer are sufficient grounds for denial, the 27 Court will also evaluate the untimeliness of Defendant’s Motion. In its current motion, Defendant presents no argument to this Court as to why these issues should be considered 1 to have been timely raised. See ECF No. 88. 2 In Defendant’s ex parte, Defendant provided dates in which Defendant served his 3 various discovery requests as well as the dates when Plaintiffs either allegedly failed to 4 respond or responded insufficiently. Mot. to Amend, at 3-5. The discovery disputes 5 identified by Defendant as well as Plaintiffs’ response dates include, but are not limited to: 6 a. On November 28, 2025, Defendant served his First Set of RFPs (Nos. 1- 7 37). Plaintiff served responses on January 21, 2026; 8 b. On February 13, 2026, Defendant served his First Set of Interrogatories 9 (Nos. 1-23). On July 1, 2026, Plaintiffs provide non-verified interrogatory 10 responses; 11 c. On February 13, 2026, Defendant served his Second Set of RFPS (Nos. 12 38-62). Plaintiffs failed to provide any responsive documents; 13 d. On April 25, 2026, Defendant served a Document Subpoena on third party 14 Kyle Temple McCollum.3 Plaintiffs failed to respond or provide 15 documents despite Defendant’s attempts to meet and confer on the issue. 16 Id. at 3-5. Additionally, Defendant asserts that a discovery conference call took place on 17 April 1, 2026, between Judge Major’s clerk, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defense counsel 18 wherein Plaintiffs’ counsel assured the Court that all discovery issues previously raised 19 “would be addressed within 30 days of the discovery conference call.” Id. at 4. However, 20 according to Defendant, Plaintiffs either “failed to provide” any responses and responsive 21 documents or found Plaintiffs’ responses did not address the “discovery issues raised at the 22 April 1, 2026 discovery conference call . . . .” Id. But Defendant provides no explanation 23 why this issue was not thereafter brought to the Court’s attention until the day before 24 discovery closed. 25 The Scheduling Order—issued back in September 2025—instructed the parties how 26 27 3 Defendant represents that Mr. McCollum is represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Nonetheless, Defendant 1 to handle discovery disputes: 2 Counsel must promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all 3 discovery disputes in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 37(a)(1) and Civil Local Rule 26.1(a). All discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of the service of an objection, answer or response which 5 becomes the subject of dispute or the passage of a discovery due date without 6 response or production, and only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached impasse with regard to the particular issue. The Court’s 7 procedures for resolving discovery disputes are set forth in Magistrate Judge 8 Barbara L. Major’s Civil Chambers Rules, which are posted on the Court’s website. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a 9 party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation 10 continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 11 12 ECF No. 46, at 2. This Court’s own Chambers Rules provides parties 45 days to raise 13 discovery disputes. By the most generous metric,4 Defendant’s deadline by which to bring 14 their latest discovery dispute (July 1, 2026, i.e., Plaintiffs serving non-verified 15 interrogatories) would have been August 15, 2026. The purpose of the rules governing 16 timely raising discovery issues is to make sure discovery can be completed prior to the cut- 17 off date set by the Court. Defendant, by waiting until August 27, 2026, to raise discovery 18 issues with the Court, has effectively frustrated that purpose. 19 The Scheduling Order was issued nearly a year ago. See ECF No. 46. The Parties 20 were given almost a year to conduct discovery and were instructed on how and when to 21 bring discovery disputes to the Court’s attention. The Scheduling Order also advised the 22 parties of the consequences for failing to timely raise discovery disputes. Instead, 23 Defendant filed its ex parte alerting the Court of outstanding discovery disputes the day 24 before fact discovery closed, ECF No. 82, and now brings this Motion after fact discovery 25 26 4 For illustrative purposes, the Court is using the 45-day timeframe laid out in the Chambers Rules of the 27 Hon. Janet A. Cabral, United States Magistrate Judge. See § III(C)-(D). However, the actual, controlling timeframe set by the Scheduling Order gave Defendant 30 days to alert the Court of discovery disputes. 1 || has in fact closed. ECF No. 88. Courts have routinely found that a party’s untimely filing 2 ||of a motion or raising a dispute waives those issues. See FlowRider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific 3 || Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN (BLM), 2017 WL 951037, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 4 2017) (finding that Defendant’s untimely motion to compel “waived the discovery □□ . it 5 ||now seeks to compel.’”’); see also Greer, 2022 WL 16951840, at *2 (denying a party’s 6 ||motion to compel on the grounds that it was untimely because the party “raised his 7 ||challenges ... more than five months after” the dispute arose.) see also CUEBIO Group, 8 || LLC v. Paedae Inc., dba Gimbal and operating as Infillion, Gimbal, Inc., No. 25-cv-2255- 9 || JAH-DEB, 2026 WL 2390745, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2026) (denying Defendants’ 10 ||motion to compel because Defendants did not raise their discovery challenges with the 11 || Court “within thirty days” as was required by the Court’s chambers rules and scheduling 12 || order.) Regardless of the truth of Plaintiffs’ alleged discovery abuses, a party cannot sit on 13 || their hands regarding discovery disputes to only then jump up the courthouse steps before 14 bell tolls. Due to the untimeliness of Defendant’s motion, the Court DENIES 15 || Defendant’s Motion to Compel. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant William Ian Martin Bonar’s Motion to Compel 18 || Discovery from Plaintiffs is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: September 11, 2026 2 ff Janet A. Cabral United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 QR