Batta Fulkerson, LLP v. Bulldog Law, P.C.

1
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BATTA FULKERSON, LLP,
Plaintiff,
v.
BULLDOG LAW, PC,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
AND EXPENSES
DKT. NO. 58
Before the Court is plaintiff Batta Fulkerson, LLP’s (“Batta Fulkerson”) Motion for
Sanctions (“Motion”) and defendant Bulldog Law, PC’s (“Bulldog Law”) Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (“Opposition”). Dkt. Nos. 58, 61. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion.
I. 	PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2025, Batta Fulkerson, a San Diego, California based law firm, filed
suit against defendant Bulldog Law, a Glendale, California based law firm. Dkt. No. 1.
Batta Fulkerson alleges it “has advertised as ‘the bulldog lawyers’ since the firm’s
inception in 2016.” Id. at 4. It claims to be “the lawful owner of U.S. Registration No.
6304103 for the BULLDOG ATTORNEYS Mark, registered March 30, 2021, for legal
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 10

2
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
services, including legal advice, legal information services, and providing information in
the field of law in Class 045,” and two registered design marks (Reg. No. 5295946 and
Reg. No. 6152296) “for use in connection with ‘attorney services’ and ‘legal advice; legal
information 	services; 	legal 	services; 	providing 	information 	in 	the 	field 	of 	law,’
respectively, in International Class 045,” which “were first used in commerce in 2017.” Id.
at 3. Batta Fulkerson also alleges it “used the word marks, THE BULLDOG LAWYER,
and INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT? HIRE A BULLDOG ATTORNEY, in commerce in
connection 	with, 	‘attorney 	services; 	legal 	services; 	legal 	advisory 	services; 	legal
consultation services; legal information services; legal support services; information,
advisory and consultancy services relating to legal matters; pro bono legal services,’ in
International Class 045, since at least May 10, 2016,” and has applications for these marks
pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Serial Nos. 98761975 and
98761983). Id. at 3-4.
Batta Fulkerson alleges Bulldog Law “was formed on August 30, 2022, and
commenced operation as a law firm under the name, BULLDOG LAW at some point
thereafter.” Id. at 4. Batta Fulkerson alleges Bulldog Law’s “unauthorized use of marks
substantially similar to plaintiff’s trademarks in connection with services identical to those
provided by plaintiff” supports the causes of action: (1) Trademark Infringement Under the
Lanham Act; (2) Common Law Trademark Infringement; (3) Unfair Competition Under
the Lanham Act; (4) False Designation of Origin Under the Lanham Act; (5) Violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1125(D); (6) Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and
(7) Unjust Enrichment. Id. at 2.
Bulldog Law filed its Answer and Counterclaims on April 7, 2025, and Amended
Answer and Counterclaims on April 28, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 6, 8. Bulldog Law generally
denies the validity of Batta Fulkerson’s claimed marks and seeks “a declaration that
[Bulldog Law’s] use of ‘BULLDOG LAW’ does not infringe plaintiff’s alleged marks, and
[requests the Court] cancel plaintiff’s registered trademarks insofar as the court finds that
they are generic, descriptive without secondary meaning, or abandoned.” Dkt. No. 8 at 7.
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 10

3
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bulldog Law also alleges “plaintiff’s attempt to police the legal profession for uses of the
term ‘Bulldog,’” constitutes unfair business acts and practices. Id. at 14. 	Bulldog Law
contends these facts support the causes of action: (1) Declaratory Judgment of Non-
Infringement and Cancellation of Registered Marks; (2) Violation of the First Amendment
and California Article I, § 2 of the California Constitution; (3) Unfair Competition Under
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§ 172000 and Common Law; and (5) Unjust Enrichment. Dkt. No. 8.
On June 13, 2025, Batta Fulkerson served its First Set of Requests for Production
(“RFPs”) on Bulldog Law. Dkt. No. 58-2. On July 14, 2025, Batta Fulkerson served its
Revised First Set of Interrogatories (“Revised Interrogatories”).1 Dkt. No. 58-3.
On August 8, 2025, the Court conducted a Status Conference, during which Batta
Fulkerson’s counsel brought to the Court’s attention concerns about Bulldog Law’s
discovery responses, or lack thereof, and counsel’s refusal to meet and confer about
discovery or a protective order. Dkt. No. 31. The Court then ordered counsel to “meet and
confer regarding: (1) the adequacy of defendant’s initial disclosures and discovery
responses no later than August 13, 2025; and (2) a protective order no later than August
15, 2025.” Id.
On August 29, 2025, “[a]fter receiving an update from counsel regarding a dispute
about [Bulldog Law’s] responses to [Batta Fulkerson’s RFPs], the Court order[ed]
[Bulldog Law] must make a supplemental production on or before September 2, 2025.”
Dkt. No. 36.
On September 10, 2025, the parties lodged by email a Joint Discovery Statement
informing the Court that counsel had met and conferred regarding Bulldog Law’s
1 Batta Fulkerson’s Revised First Set of Interrogatories were propounded after Bulldog
Law objected wholesale to providing a substantive response to any interrogatory in the
First Set of Interrogatories Batta Fulkerson served on June 13, 2025, and contain the only
interrogatories currently at issue. Dkt. No. 58 at 3.
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 10

4
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
document production and failure to respond to the Revised Interrogatories but had reached
an impasse. Dkt. No. 42 at 4-27.
On September 19, 2025, the Court conducted a Discovery Conference and ordered:
Defendant must provide full and complete formal responses to plaintiff’s
Revised First Set of Interrogatories on or before October 3, 2025. [Dkt. No.
42 at 4-17.] Defendant has not shown good cause for its failure to timely
respond and, therefore, has waived all objections to these discovery requests.
See FRCP 33(b)(4) (“Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived
unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.”)
Defendant must provide a formal response to plaintiff’s [RFP’s] and produce
non-privileged documents responsive to RFP Nos. 11, 12, and 26 on or before
October 3, 2025. [Dkt. No. 42 at 18-27.] Defendant must also produce non-
privileged documents responsive to RFP 14 on or before October 3, 2025,
unless the parties agree to stipulate to facts relevant to defendant’s ownership
and registration of thebulldog.law domain in lieu of production. Id.
If defendant withholds any documents based on objection, its response “must
state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that
objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit
inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). If any documents are
withheld “based on a claimed protection or privilege [defendant] must identify
the withheld documents in a manner such that the requesting party can
reasonably 	identify 	and 	challenge 	the 	withholding 	of 	the 	documents.”
Chambers Rules for Civil Pretrial Proceedings, IX.
Dkt. No. 42 at 1-2.
On January 19, 2026, Batta Fulkerson filed the pending Motion, alleging Bulldog
Law “has never served any response – substantive or otherwise – to the Revised
Interrogatories,” and “failed to produce responsive documents in a meaningful or complete
manner,” and requesting the Court impose terminating or evidentiary sanctions.2 Dkt. No.
58 at 3-4. Bulldog Law opposes the Motion. Dkt. No. 61.
/ /
2 The Court granted Batta Fulkerson leave to file the Motion and the Court’s 30 Day Rule
is not applicable. Dkt. Nos. 52. 56.
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 10

5
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	LEGAL AUTHORITIES
Batta Fulkerson requests sanctions be imposed against Bulldog Law under: (1)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A); (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(d)(1)(a)(ii); and (3) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). Dkt. No. 58 at 7-9. Rule
37(b)(2)(A) allows for the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with
discovery orders. Rule 37(d)(1)(a)(ii) authorizes sanctions for a party’s failure to serve
“answers, objections, or a written response” to interrogatories. Rule 37(e) provides for
sanctions for the spoliation of electronically stored information (“ESI”).
District courts in this Circuit apply the preponderance of evidence standard when
considering sanctions. Weride Corp. v. Kun Huang, Case No. 18-cv-07233-EJD, 2020 WL
1967209 at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2020). The court may make factual findings and assess
the credibility of witnesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52; see also Valley Eng’rs v. Electric Eng’g
Co., 158 F.3d 1051,1054 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding willfulness was a fair inference from the
fact that witness testimony was not credible).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Respond to Revised Interrogatories
Batta Fulkerson contends “[d]efendant’s complete failure to respond to plaintiff’s
Revised First Set of Interrogatories,” supports the imposition of sanctions under Rule
37(b)(2)(A) and 37(d)(1)(a)(ii). Dkt. No. 58 at 7. Bulldog Law generally argues Batta
Fulkerson has engaged in discovery with “unclean hands,” but does not address its failure
to comply with the Court’s order to respond to Batta Fulkerson’s Revised Interrogatories
or offer any argument as to why it should not be sanctioned for this failure. Dkt. No. 61.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose on every party a duty to cooperate
and comply with the discovery process and to comply with court orders. These obligations
are not negated by a claim of unclean hands. Bulldog Law’s failure to produce any
substantive response to the Revised Interrogatories, despite so being ordered, supports the
imposition of sanctions under both Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and 37(d)(1)(a)(ii). See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(b)(2)(A) (“If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 10

6
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may
issue further just orders.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(a)(ii) (“The court where the
action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if . . . a party, after being properly served
with interrogatories under Rule 33 . . . fails to serve its answers, objections, or written
response.”)
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the district court, in its discretion,
to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery
or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d
585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). “If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide
or permit discovery . . . , the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders”
and may include:
(i) 	directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated
facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing
party claims;
(ii) 	prohibiting 	the 	disobedient 	party 	from 	supporting 	or 	opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters
in evidence;
(iii) 	striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) 	staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) 	dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) 	rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) 	treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an
order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3) (“Sanctions may include
any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi)”). “Instead of or in addition to the orders
above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both
to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 10

7
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).
Bulldog Law and counsel offer no justification for their failure to produce Bulldog
Law’s response to the Revised Interrogatories, or for their failure to comply with the
Court’s order, so the Court must order they pay Batta Fulkerson’s reasonable expenses
caused by these failures. Id.
Batta Fulkerson requests the Court also strike Bulldog Law’s Counterclaims or,
alternatively, preclude Bulldog Law from offering evidence or argument at trial relating to
Bulldog Law’s alleged damages, profits, revenues or lack thereof, marketing efforts or use
of the BULLDOG LAW mark; and preclude any argument this mark has not caused
consumer confusion. Dkt. No. 58 at 18. A lesser sanction of compelling written discovery
responses, in addition to a monetary sanction for Batta Fulkerson’s reasonable attorney
fees and expenses, is available and sufficient at this time; however, Bulldog Law and
counsel are cautioned that future failures to comply with court orders or discovery
obligations will likely result in additional and increased sanctions.
B. Bulldog Law’s Document Production and Alleged Spoilation of ESI
Batta Fulkerson also seeks sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), contending Bulldog
Law failed to “produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to [RFP] Nos. 11, 12, 14,
and 26” and “never provided a privilege log identifying withheld documents, despite so
being ordered.” Dkt. No. 58 at 7. Batta Fulkerson claims Bulldog Law “produced only a
small number of documents on a piecemeal basis, repeatedly re-produced the same limited
materials in successive productions, failed to bates stamp documents, and did not produce
responsive materials in native format where required. These deficiencies prevented [Batta
Fulkerson] from determining whether [Bulldog Law] conducted a reasonable search or
produced all responsive documents and substantially prejudiced [Batta Fulkerson]’s ability
to litigate its claims and defenses.” Dkt. No. 58 at 4. Batta Fulkerson also advocates for
terminating sanctions to be imposed under Rule 37(e) for Bulldog Law’s alleged failure to
preserve ESI. Id. at 8-9.
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 10

8
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bulldog Law generally argues Batta Fulkerson “seeks documents not requested,” its
“discovery demands are no longer proportional to the needs of the case,” and it has
“unclean hands.” Dkt. No. 61. Bulldog Law does not dispute it has not produced a privilege
log, nor does it substantively respond to the ESI spoilation argument. Id.
Bulldog Law did not timely object to the proportionality of RFP Nos 11, 12, 14, and
26 and, thus, has waived this objection. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants,
959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to
discovery 	requests 	within 	the 	time 	required 	constitutes 	a 	waiver 	of 	any
objection.”) Moreover, unclean hands by one party does not justify another party’s failure
to comply with its discovery obligations or Court orders. The Motion, however, does not
set forth sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether Bulldog Law has produced
sufficient documents responsive to RFP Nos. 11, 12, 14, and 26, or whether ESI “that
should have been preserved . . . is lost because [Bulldog Law] failed to take reasonable
steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). Moreover, it will be difficult for the Court to address either of these
issues given the lack of bates numbers on Bulldog Law’s document production. The Court,
therefore, addresses the obvious impediment and directs Bulldog Law to assign a unique,
sequential bates number to all documents or ESI it has produced thus far, or produces in
the future. Moreover, to the extent that Bulldog Law has produced responsive materials
that are not in native format, it must “produce [the information] in the form or forms in
which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(E). The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Batta Fulkerson’s request for
terminating sanctions relating to Bulldog Law’s document production.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Batta Fulkerson’s Motion with regard
to 	its 	request 	for sanctions 	for Bulldog 	Law’s 	failure to respond 	to 	the Revised
Interrogatories and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Batta Fulkerson’s request for
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 10

9
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
terminating 	sanctions 	relating 	to 	Bulldog 	Law’s 	document 	production. 	The 	Court
ORDERS:
(1) Bulldog Law must produce full and complete written responses to Batta
Fulkerson’s Revised First Set of Interrogatories on pleading paper and formatted
to conform to Civ. LR 5.1.a. Bulldog Law must serve its written responses on or
before March 27, 2026;
(2) The parties must assign a unique, sequential bates number to all documents or
ESI they produce during this litigation. Bulldog Law must assign a unique,
sequential bates number to all documents or ESI it has produced to date, on or
before March 27, 2026.
(3) To the extent that Bulldog Law has produced responsive materials that are not in
native format, it must “produce [the information] in the form or forms in which
it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms” on or before
March 27, 2026. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E).
(4) A telephonic Discovery Conference will be held on April 17, 2026, at 11:30 a.m.
The 	Court 	will 	issue 	conference 	call 	instructions 	prior 	to 	the 	Discovery
Conference. 	Counsel must file a Joint Status Report regarding the status of
Bulldog Law’s compliance with this Order on or before April 10, 2026.
(5) Bulldog Law, Mario P. Tafur, and Phillip R. Berwish must “pay [Batta
Fulkerson’s] reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the[ir]
failure” to produce responses to the Revised Interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(d)(3). Batta Fulkerson’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses must be filed
on or before March 20, 2026. Bulldog Law may file an opposition or other
responsive brief on or before April 3, 2026.
(6) The Court again encourages counsel and the parties to work cooperatively
in discovery and to adhere to their discovery obligations. While the Court has
denied Batta Fulkerson’s request for sanctions for Bulldog Law’s alleged failure
to comply with the Court’s order to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos.
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
9 of 10

10
25-cv-551-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11, 12, 14, and 26, and for alleged ESI spoilation, this denial is without prejudice
to Batta Fulkerson refiling. Bulldog Law and its counsel are reminded should
Batta Fulkerson refile and prevail on said issues, additional sanctions,
including the imposition of additional fees and expenses, will likely be
imposed. 	See 	e.g. 	Dkt. 	No. 	62 	(including 	Batta 	Fulkerson’s 	request 	for
implementation 	of 	EDI 	protocol 	administered 	by 	a 	neutral 	third-party
administrator at Bulldog Law’s expense.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00551-AGS-GC Document 63 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
10 of 10