Alcon Vision v. Lens.com Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ALCON VISION, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. 	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART [42]
MOTION FOR SIGNIFICANT
EXPENSES AND DENYING [44]
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 2:20-mc-00639-DBB-CMR
Defendant. 	Judge David Barlow
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
1-800 CONTACTS, INC.
Respondent.
This matter is referred to the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
(ECF 4). Before the court is Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.’s (1-800 Contacts) Motion for
Attorney Fees and Award of Significant Expenses (Motion for Expenses) (ECF 42). Also before
the court is Defendant Lens.com, Inc.’s (Lens.com) Motion for Sanctions (ECF 44). Having
carefully considered the relevant filings (ECF 42–47) and oral argument (ECF 49), and for the
reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Expenses and DENIES the
Motion for Sanctions.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Alcon Vision (Alcon) initiated an action in the Eastern District of New York
bringing claims against Lens.com for trademark infringement and unfair competition arising from
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 14

2
alleged gray market contact lens sales (New York Case).1 Lens.com filed a motion to compel
asking this court to enforce compliance with a subpoena served on non-party 1-800 Contacts (ECF
2). On June 15, 2022, the court issued an order (Order) (ECF 22) granting Lens.com’s motion to
compel and setting a production deadline of June 30, 2022. On June 21, 2022, 1-800 Contacts filed
a motion to stay enforcement (ECF 42) of the Order. On June 29, 2022, 1-800 Contacts also filed
an Objection (ECF 28) to the court’s Order. On July 20, 2022, the court denied the motion to stay
and extended the time for 1-800 Contacts to comply with the Order until July 29, 2022 (ECF 35).
Two days before this deadline, 1-800 filed a second motion to stay enforcement (ECF 37) of the
Order before Judge Barlow. On the date of the deadline, 1-800 Contacts produced information
responsive to the subpoena and filed a notice of withdrawal (ECF 40) of the second motion to stay.
Judge Barlow ultimately overruled 1-800 Contacts’ Objection to the Order on August 9, 2022
(ECF 41).
On August 23, 2022, 1-800 Contacts filed the present Motion for Expenses (ECF 42)
seeking to recover its expenses for producing documents responsive to the subpoena pursuant to
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1-800 Contacts indicates it reviewed 37,000
potentially responsive pages for confidentiality and privilege, and ultimately its production
consisted of 400 documents totaling 5,700 pages (ECF 42 at 3). Using the lodestar method for
calculating fees,2 1-800 Contacts claims to have incurred $65,551.43 in attorney fees and
$3,573.39 for an electronic discovery vendor resulting from compliance with the subpoena (ECF
42 at 5). Lens.com filed an Opposition arguing the claimed fees are unreasonable (ECF 43), and
1 Alcon Vision, LLC v. Lens.com, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00407-NG-RLM (E.D.N.Y).
2 See, e.g., BlueRadios, Inc. v. Kopin Corp., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02052-JLK, 2022 WL 17976672, at *5 (D. Colo. Sept.
16, 2022) (describing the lodestar method as multiplying the hours counsel spent by an hourly rate).
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 14

3
1-800 Contacts thereafter filed a Reply (ECF 45). On September 16, 2022, Lens.com filed its
Motion for Sanctions seeking reimbursement of its attorney fees for “1-800’s bad faith abuse of
the discovery process” pursuant to the court’s inherent power to award fees (ECF 44 at 1). 1-800
Contacts filed an Opposition (ECF 45) arguing Lens.com has failed to meet its burden to show bad
faith, and Lens.com filed a Reply (ECF 46). On December 13, 2022, the court heard oral argument
(ECF 49) on the Motion for Expenses and Motion for Sanctions. The court will address each
motion in turn below.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion for Expenses
Rule 45 provides that an order requiring compliance with a subpoena must “protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expenses resulting from
compliance.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). “The party seeking reimbursement has the burden of
establishing ‘the existence and reasonableness of the costs or fees incurred, and that these expenses
should be shifted.’” Lambland, Inc. v. Heartland Biogas, LLC, No. 18-CV-01060-RM-KLM, 2019
WL 6052414, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 15, 2019) (quoting In re Application of Michael Wilson &
Partners, Ltd., No. 06-cv-02575-MSK-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217, at *4 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012),
aff'd, 520 F. App’x 736 (10th Cir. 2013)).
1. 	1-800 Contacts Incurred Significant Expenses.
“The court must first determine what expenses resulted from compliance, and then whether
those expenses are significant.” FTC v. Zurixx, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00713-DAK-DAO, 2021 WL
2779285, at *1 (D. Utah July 2, 2021) (quoting N.M. Oncology & Hematology Consultants, Ltd.
v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., No. CV 12-526 MV/GBW, 2016 WL 10296569, at *1 (D.N.M.
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 14

4
May 11, 2016)). 1-800 Contacts claims that it incurred $12,882.00 in attorney fees for narrowing
the subpoena (to confer and negotiate with Lens.com and object to scope); an additional
$52,669.43 in attorney fees (to identify, collect, process, and review documents for confidentiality
and privilege issues); and $3,573.39 in vendor costs for producing documents in response to the
subpoena (ECF 42 at 6–7). Stated otherwise, 1-800 Contacts seeks an award of $65,551.43 in
attorney fees and $3,573.39 in costs, for a total award of $69,124.82. 1-800 Contacts argues that
significant expenses under Rule 45 include both the costs of actual production as well as efforts to
narrow an overly broad subpoena (id. at 7 n.3 (citing Linglong Ams. v. Horizon Tire, Inc., No.
1:15CV1240, 2018 WL 1631341, *3 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2018) (fees “incurred directly responding
to the subpoena,” such as by “work[ing] extensively to narrow the scope of the subpoena” are
compensable))).
Lens.com does not appear to dispute that 1-800 Contacts’ $69,124.82 in total claimed
expenses resulted from compliance with the subpoena. In reviewing the declaration 1-800 Contacts
submitted in support of this Motion for Expenses, it does detail the work of three attorneys relating
to the subpoena. Lens.com does argue, however, that the expenses claimed by 1-800 Contacts are
not significant relative to its $220 million annual revenue (ECF 43 at 8) and relies on the Zurixx
case to support this argument. In Zurixx, the court relied on Cardinal Growth, an out of circuit
case that concluded that “a compliance cost of more than $44,000 was not a ‘significant expense’
relative to the substantial income of $2 million the nonparty had collected from the party
defendant.” Zurixx, 2021 WL 2779285, at *3 (quoting United States v. Cardinal Growth, L.P., No.
11 C 4071, 2015 WL 850230, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2015)). However, the court in Zurixx
reasoned that the Cardinal Growth case “support[s] an approach where the nonparty’s ability to
pay is weighed against [a] governmental entity’s fiscal responsibility to taxpayers” and that
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 14

5
“comparing the cost of compliance to the amount the nonparty has received from the defendant
party is appropriate in determining whether the cost is significant.” Zurixx, 2021 WL 2779285, at
*4. Because this case involves neither a governmental entity nor payment from the defendant to
the non-party like in Cardinal Growth, the court does not find Lens.com’s reliance on Zurixx to
be persuasive. As noted by 1-800 Contacts, Lens.com has not provided sufficient authority to
support its argument that a non-party’s income is relevant to the determination of whether expenses
are significant.
Lens.com correctly notes that the Tenth Circuit has never decided “what constitutes a
‘significant’ expense within the meaning of Rule 45” (ECF 43 at 7 (quoting Rhea v. Apache Corp.,
833 F. App’x 186, 190 n.2 (10th Cir. 2020))). The Tenth Circuit has nonetheless acknowledged
that “other circuits have suggested that amounts in the range of $9,000 to $20,000 qualify as
significant.” See Rhea, 833 F. App’x at 190 n.2. District courts in the Tenth Circuit have
determined that amounts less than the $69,124.82 at issue here qualify as “significant.” See, e.g.,
United States ex rel. D’Anna v. Lee Mem’l Health Sys., No. 2:20-mc-196 HCN-DBP, 2022 WL
2047377, at *2 (D. Utah June 7, 2022) (amounts ranging from $468 to $6,172 “would be
significant”); Crandall v. City & Cty. of Denver, No. 05-cv-00242-MSK-MEH, 2007 WL 162743,
at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 17, 2007) (total of $58,156.81 incurred by United Air Lines, Inc. and Gallagher
Bassett Services, Inc. “is significant”). The court finds the amount at issue in the Crandall case to
be comparable to the amount at issue in this case. As noted above, Lens.com has not provided
sufficient authority that the specific amount claimed by 1-800 Contacts is not significant.
Moreover, “a significant expense is evident when a non-party is required to produce substantial
documents or electronically stored information.” See United States ex rel. D'Anna v. Lee Mem'l
Health Sys., No. 2:20-MC-196 HCN-DBP, 2021 WL 3913700, at *2 (D. Utah Sept. 1, 2021) (citing
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 14

6
Rhea, 833 F. App’x at 191). As noted above, 1-800 produced a substantial number of pages in
documents in response to the subpoena. For these reasons, the court finds that the expenses claimed
by 1-800 Contacts are significant.
2. 	1-800 Contacts Met its Burden to Shift Expenses.
“If the expenses are significant, the court must protect the non-party by requiring the party
seeking discovery to bear at least enough of the expense to render the remainder non-significant.”
Zurixx, 2021 WL 2779285, at *1 (quoting Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 2016 WL 10296569,
at *1). However, “[p]rotection from significant expense does not mean that the requesting party
necessarily must bear the entire cost of compliance.” BlueRadios, Inc. v. Kopin Corp., Inc., No.
1:16-CV-02052-JLK, 2022 WL 17976672, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2022) (quoting Linder v.
Calero-Portocarrero, 180 F.R.D. 168, 177 (D.D.C. 1998)). “A non[ ]party can be required to bear
some or all of its expense where the equities of a particular case demand it.” Id. (quoting In re
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 230 F.R.D. 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). Courts in the Tenth
Circuit3 consider the following equitable factors in making this determination: “(1) whether the
nonparty has an interest in the outcome of the underlying litigation; (2) whether the nonparty can
more readily bear the cost than the requesting party, and (3) whether the litigation is of public
interest.” Zurixx, 2021 WL 2779285, at *1. “Courts have also considered the scope of discovery
and the extent to which the nonparty was required to separate responsive information from
3 1-800 Contacts argues that application of these factors violates the mandatory language in Rule 45 (ECF 9–10 at n.5)
yet still addresses each of the factors because courts in the Tenth Circuit have continued to apply them. Assuming
without deciding that these factors are applicable, the court will consider the parties’ respective arguments.
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 14

7
privileged or irrelevant material, and the reasonableness of the cost of production incurred.” Id.
(citing Lambland, 2019 WL 6052414, at *3).
First, 1-800 Contacts argues that it has no interest in the outcome of the New York Case
because it is not a party (ECF 42 at 10). In response, Lens.com claims that 1-800 Contacts has a
“significant financial interest” in the New York Case because gray market contact sales harm 1-
800 Contacts (ECF 43 at 9). While Lens.com states that this court has already found that 1-800
Contacts has a significant financial interest in the New York Case (ECF 43 at 8), the court did not
make this finding in its Order. The court stated in its Order, “Lens.com received discovery from
Alcon during this litigation that Alcon and 1-800 Contacts have discussed how the gray market
harms both Alcon and 1-800 Contacts” (ECF 22 at 6). This was not a finding of a “significant
financial interest.” See Zurixx, 2021 WL 2779285, at *3. At most, this suggests the court
acknowledged the possibility of a financial impact on 1-800 Contacts. Lens.com does not provide
authority to support that this is sufficient for it to avoid its obligation under Rule 45 to protect non-
party 1-800 Contacts from significant expense. In light of this, the court finds that this factor
weighs in favor of shifting the expense to Lens.com.
As to the second factor, 1-800 Contacts argues that Lens.com can bear the cost of
compliance as readily as it can because Lens.com is litigating the New York Case (ECF 42 at 10).
Lens.com responds that 1-800 Contacts has failed to meet its burden to show it cannot more readily
bear the cost considering that Lens.com has less revenue than 1-800 Contacts (ECF 43 at 8). 1-800
Contacts notes that Lens.com has not requested that the court take judicial notice of the annual
revenues of 1-800 Contacts and Lens.com or submitted this information in a form that would be
admissible at trial (ECF 45 at 6, 8). While the court agrees that Lens.com is a large corporation
capable of subsidizing its own litigation costs, 1-800 Contacts has not met its burden to provide
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 14

8
information indicating that it is “unable to bear the costs of compliance.” See Zurixx, 2021 WL
2779285, at *4. The court therefore finds that this factor weighs against shifting the expense.
Finally, 1-800 Contacts argues that the New York Case is of little public interest because
it involves enforcement of a specific trademark rather than a class action (ECF 42 at 10–11; ECF
45 at 10), while Lens.com counters that the New York Case is of public interest because it impacts
the affordability of contact lenses (ECF 43 at 10). 1-800 Contacts relies on caselaw suggesting
that infringement suits, without more, are of little to no public interest (ECF 45 at 10). The court
agrees with 1-800 Contacts and finds that the final factor weighs in favor of shifting costs. Having
considered the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that the equitable factors support
shifting the expense of compliance with the subpoena to Lens.com.
3. 	Most of the Expenses Incurred by 1-800 Contacts are Reasonable.
Turning to the reasonableness of the fee request, 1-800 Contacts contends that its claimed
expenses for narrowing and complying with the subpoena are reasonable because the subpoena
was facially overbroad and necessitated review of over 37,000 pages for responsiveness and
privilege (ECF 42 at 8–9). Lens.com asks the court to reduce the $65,551.43 in requested attorney
fees because two attorneys at the partner level performed work that is typically performed by
associates (ECF 43 at 11).4 Lens.com requests that 78.7 hours of work performed by the two
4 The declaration of 1-800 Contacts only identifies Steven Joffee (a 2010 graduate) as a partner, and Evan Strassberg
(1998 graduate) and Ethan Bercot (2014 graduate) as attorneys that helped on the matter, but Mr. Strassberg’s rate is
consistent with Mr. Joffee’s partner level rate (ECF 42-1). For ease of reference, the court will use Lens.com’s
designation of Joffee and Strassberg as partners and of Bercot as an associate attorney.
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 8
of 14

9
partners be reduced to the hourly rate of $295, which is the rate of the 1-800 Contacts’ associate,5
resulting in a $11,018.00 reduction (id).6
1-800 Contacts responds that partners may appropriately perform document review “when
‘more experience and knowledge’ is needed, such as when the documents at issue ‘c[o]me from
senior executives, including the CEO, and contain[] confidential and sensitive information’” (ECF
45 at 10–11 (quoting Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 18-1100-EFM, 2021 WL 4844058,
at *4–5 (D. Kan. Oct. 18, 2021)). 1-800 Contacts claims that the information requested by
Lens.com required review of confidential and highly sensitive business information from
executive leadership and that more experienced attorneys were able to conduct the review more
efficiently (id.). While the court agrees that the nature of the information requested in this case
necessitated review by more senior attorneys, it disagrees a review by two partner level attorneys
was necessary and therefore reduces the total attorney fee award of $65,551.43 by 16%7 or
$10,488.23 to account for duplication of effort. This 16% general reduction results in an attorney
fee award of $55,063.20, which the court finds to be a reasonable amount.
5 Lens.com has not otherwise challenged the use of the lodestar method or the reasonableness of the attorneys’ hourly
rates. Regardless, the court finds the calculation method and hourly rates to be reasonable and comparable to the local
market. See Parker v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1235 (D. Utah 2013), aff'd, 572 F. App'x 602 (10th
Cir. 2014) (“A reasonable rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant community.” (quoting Guides, Ltd. v.
Yarmouth Group Property Management, Inc., 295 F.3d 1065, 1078 (10th Cir. 2002))).
6 Lens.com does not explain its calculation method to arrive at the $11,018 reduction. It appears Lens.com used a
partner rate of $435, but 1-800 Contacts billed its two partners at different rates ranging from $325 to $435 as set forth
in its declaration (ECF 42-1). The declaration of Lens.com that contains the chart used to justify the requested 78.7-
hour reduction fails to account for the varying rates of 1-800 Contacts attorneys, and while it is possible the entries
identified match up to 1-800 Contacts’ entries at the $435 rate, Lens.com not does specifically address this (ECF 43-
1), and the court declines to do so. See Electro-Mech. Prods., Inc. v. Alan Lupton Assocs. Inc., No. 1:22-CV-00763-
PAB-SBP, 2025 WL 51205, at *16 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2025) (“In exercising its discretion in determining reasonable
attorney's fees, this court need not analyze the reasonableness of the lawyer's billed hours on a task by task basis.”).
7 It appears the requested reduction of Lens.com was approximately 16.8%, which is consistent with the reduction the
court orders.
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 9
of 14

10
Lens.com further argues that 1-800 Contacts’ claimed expenses are not reasonable because
1-800 Contacts failed to limit costs by (1) forcing Lens.com to file its motion to compel; (2) never
providing the court information about the burden of compliance; and (3) making repeated efforts
to delay compliance (ECF 43 at 4–6). Lens.com asks that the attorney fees be reduced to account
for delaying compliance, overbilling, and failing to meet and confer (id.). Courts have reduced
expense awards based on inefficiencies such overbilling. See, e.g., Electro-Mech. Prods., Inc. v.
Alan Lupton Assocs. Inc., No. 1:22-CV-00763-PAB-SBP, 2025 WL 51205, at *17–18 (D. Colo.
Jan. 8, 2025) (ordering a 30 percent general reduction in part for duplication of effort).
Here, other than generally referencing 75 hours were spent on “reviewing documents and
related tasks,” etc., Lens.com does not identify which time entries are inappropriate or excessive
or identify a specific amount by which it requests that the fee award be reduced based on these
arguments. Regardless, the fee declaration submitted by 1-800 Contacts did not include charges
for drafting the motions to stay or objecting to the Order (ECF 45 at 4). Moreover, it does not
appear that the fee declaration includes excess charges as a result of delaying compliance or failing
to meet and confer (ECF 42-2). Review of the fee declaration reflects that a reasonable amount
was billed for narrowing and responding to the subpoena (id.). Thus, the court declines to make a
reduction to the total claimed attorney fees on this basis.
For these reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Expenses (ECF 42) and
awards $55,063.20 in attorney fees and $3,573.39 in vendor costs for a total award of $58,636.59
to 1-800 Contacts.
B. 	Motion for Sanctions
Lens.com requests that the court sanction 1-800 Contacts pursuant to its inherent powers
based on abuse of the discovery process (ECF 44 at 8). Under the “American Rule,” unless a statute
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 10
of 14

11
or rule provides otherwise, litigants are responsible for their own legal fees. See F.T.C. v.
Kuykendall, 466 F.3d 1149, 1152 (10th Cir. 2006). “In certain rare circumstances, however, an
exception to this rule is applied when a [litigant] is found to have acted in bad faith.” Id. (quoting
United States v. McCall, 235 F.3d 1211, 1216 (10th Cir. 2000)). “[O]ne permissible sanction is an
assessment of attorney’s fees—an order . . . instructing a party that has acted in bad faith to
reimburse legal fees and costs incurred by the other side.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger,
137 S.Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). This “includes sanctions to prevent abuses of the discovery process.”
Diesel Power Source v. Crazy Carl's Turbos, No. 2:14-CV-826 DN, 2017 WL 721995, at *1 (D.
Utah Feb. 23, 2017). The party moving for sanctions bears the burden of proving bad faith conduct.
See, e.g., Rogler v. Standard Ins. Co., 30 F. App’x 909, 914 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirming denial of
sanctions where movant “did not meet her burden of proving that [respondent] acted bad faith”).
Additionally, “courts generally require a finding . . . of subjective bad faith” by a party.
See Sterling Energy, Ltd. v. Friendly Nat’l Bank, 744 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1984); see also
Kuykendall, 466 F.3d at 1152–53 (“The test for bad faith is conjunctive—it requires clear evidence
of both a complete lack of color and an improper purpose[.]”). The Tenth Circuit has “stated that
‘for the exceedingly narrow bad faith exception’ to the American Rule to apply, ‘there must be
clear evidence that the challenged [argument] is entirely without color and has been asserted
wantonly, for purposes of harassment or delay, or for other improper reasons.’” Kornfeld v.
Kornfeld, 393 F. App’x 575, 579 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting F.T.C. v. Kuykendall, 466 F.3d 1149,
1152 (10th Cir. 2006)).
Here, Lens.com argues that bad-faith sanctions are warranted in this case on four grounds.
First, Lens.com argues that 1-800 Contacts unreasonably maintained that the documents requested
in the subpoena were not relevant to the New York Case (ECF 44 at 8). Lens.com points to the
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 11
of 14

12
Order’s ruling that the requested documents were relevant to the gray market goods test applicable
to the merits of the New York Case (ECF 22 at 6), and Judge Barlow overruling 1-800 Contacts’
Objection (ECF 41 at 5). 1-800 Contacts responds that its relevance arguments were legally sound
and made in good faith and that Lens.com makes only conclusory allegations of bad faith (ECF 46
at 6). 1-800 Contacts argues that it had a colorable basis to object to the relevance of the requested
documents and that the parties’ briefing on Lens.com’s motion to compel reflect a disagreement
on the law (ECF 46 at 7). Courts have consistently stated that “[a] mere disagreement regarding
the law and its applicability to th[e] case does [not] warrant sanctions.” See, e.g., Pilot Inc. v. TYC
Bro. Indus. Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-02978-ODW (RAOx), 2021 WL 135785, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
14, 2021); see also Tribal Council v. Foster, No. CIV-17-01048-PRW, 2019 WL 1852414, at *2
(W.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2019) (declining to award bad faith sanctions based on a “legal disagreement
that is not so one-sided so as to warrant sanctions.”). The court agrees with 1-800 Contacts that its
relevance arguments were colorable and that Lens.com’s disagreement with these arguments is
insufficient to meet its high burden to show bad faith.
Second, Lens.com points to 1-800 Contacts’ failure to comply with the Order’s original
June 30, 2022 deadline to produce documents (ECF 44 at 9). In response, 1-800 Contacts notes
the fact that it timely produced responsive documents by the extended deadline of July 29, 2022
(ECF 46 at 9). The court agrees with 1-800 Contacts that its failure to comply with the initial
deadline cannot be a basis for a bad faith sanction because it timely sought a stay of this deadline
and then timely produced responsive documents before the extended deadline. While this conduct
may have resulted in a brief delay in the proceedings, the court once again is unable to find this
conduct to be sufficient to warrant a finding of bad faith.
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 12
of 14

13
Third, Lens.com contends that 1-800 Contacts filed and withdrew unnecessary motions
including the second motion to stay (ECF 44 at 10). 1-800 Contacts responds that its second motion
to stay and its withdrawal were for a proper purpose, namely to exercise its right to have its
Objection to the Order resolved before responding to the subpoena (ECF 46 at 10). When it became
apparent that Judge Barlow would not be ruling on the Objection prior to the production deadline,
1-800 Contacts withdrew the second motion to stay and produced documents on the deadline,
reserving the right to claw-back its production (id.). While Lens.com may disagree with 1-800
Contacts’ litigation strategy, this is insufficient to warrant bad-faith sanctions. As explained above,
“the bad-faith exception . . . requires more than a showing of a weak or legally inadequate
[argument], and more than a finding of negligence, frivolity, or improvidence.” Dreiling v.
Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1382–83 (10th Cir. 1988). As such, the court does
not find this conduct to rise to the level of bad faith.
Finally, Lens.com claims that 1-800 Contacts wrongly stated that the court had awarded
fees (ECF 44 at 11). 1-800 Contacts denies this claim and argues that its fee-shifting objection was
legally sound (ECF 46 at 11). As discussed above, even though 1-800 Contacts’ Objection was
ultimately overruled by Judge Barlow, an argument that ultimately proves to be legally inadequate
does not demonstrate bad faith.
In summary, the court disagrees that Lens.com has met its burden to show that bad-faith
sanctions against 1-800 Contacts are warranted and therefore DENIES Lens.com’s Motion for
Sanctions (ECF 44).
III. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART 1-800 Contacts’ Motion for
Expenses (ECF 42) and DENIES Lens.com’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF 44).
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 13
of 14

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30 December 2025.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:20-mc-00639-DBB Document 52 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 14
of 14