“Bulldog Attorneys” v. “Bulldog Law” – Sanctions Granted in Part; Denied Without Prejudice in Part

The law firm of Batta Fulkerson, LLP, sued Bulldog Law, PC, over use of its registered mark, “Bulldog Attorneys.” Batta Fulkerson, LLP v. Bulldog Law, PC, 2026 WL 622294 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2026).

The court wrote that: “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 [several alleged] causes of action….”  Bulldog Law counterclaimed.

With one bulldog pitted against another, it is probably not surprising that a discovery dispute followed.  During a status conference, “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.”  The court ordered the parties to confer.

Shortly after the bulldog conference, counsel notified the court of a dispute. The court ordered Bulldog Law to make a supplemental production.  Later, the parties informed the court that they had met, conferred, and were at an impasse.

The court conducted a discovery conference and ordered defendant Bulldog Law to provide complete discovery responses. For example, as to certain interrogatories, the court wrote: “Defendant has not shown good cause for its failure to timely respond and, therefore, has waived all objections to these discovery requests.”  It also ordered additional steps by defendant.

Next:

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…. Bulldog Law opposes the Motion.

Batta Ferguson sought sanctions under Rules 37(b)(2)(A), 37(d)(1)(a)(ii), and 37(e).  The court held that sanctions motions are governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard.

As to the first two bases, the court wrote:

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). [emphasis added].

With a warning about future conduct, the court compelled discovery responses and awarded fees because “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….”

As to its failure to produce a privilege log, Bulldog Law argued that the documents were not requested, the demands were not proportional, and that Batta Ferguson was not acting in good faith.  The court wrote that Bulldog Law did not timely object to the proportionality: “Moreover, unclean hands by one party does not justify another party’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations or Court orders.”

As to the Rule 37(e) request for sanctions, the court wrote that Bulldog Law did not  “substantively respond to the ESI spoilation argument.”  However, the court found the motion to be insufficient:

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. [emphasis added].

Thus, the motion for sanctions was granted insofar as Bulldog Law failed to respond to revised interrogatories and the request for terminating sanctions was denied without prejudice.  Bulldog Law was ordered to undertake several specific steps.

In my view: “If it was ever viable, the ‘warrior’ mentality argument cannot justify a refusal to cooperate in the digital age.” M. Berman and P. Grimm, “The Duty to Cooperate in Discovery,” in M. Berman, et al., eds., “Electronically Stored Information in Maryland Courts” (Md. State Bar Ass’n. 2020), 329.

To the same effect, the Hon. Steve Leben recently wrote of a law firm that advertised “that going against it in discovery matters would be like meeting Genghis Khan on the steps of the court house.” S. Leben, We All Have a Role in Protecting Our Justice System: Promoting Procedural Fairness, 46 ABA Litigation 6, 8 (2019). The judge noted that the advertisement was effectively used in a sanctions motion against that firm and was “counterproductive to building public legitimacy for our judicial system.”

Id. at 330.  “As properly defined, ‘cooperation’ requires focused discovery requests, specific discovery objections, negotiation, discussion, flexibility, transparency, and often an iterative process. It does not require that a litigant forego any meritorious discovery or other position.”  Id. at 339-40.

“Most critically, neither party is required to compromise a valid position.” Gensler, A Bull’s-Eye View of Cooperation in Discovery, 10 Sedona Conf. J. 363, 366-67 (2010)(citation omitted). “So long as a party takes a defensible position (and communicates it), the party may stand on that position and let the judge decide.” Id. at 367.

“The days when the requesting party can expect to ‘get it all’ and the producing party to produce what ever they feel like producing are long gone.” Hopson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228, 245 (D. Md. 2005).