Free Order on Motion for Sanctions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Avnet, Inc., et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On September 30, 2004, this Court entered its Rule 16 Scheduling Order. That order 17 contained the following paragraph: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 J. Motions on discovery matters are strongly discouraged. Parties are directed to Local Rule 1.10(j) (now LRCiv 7.2(j)), which prohibits filing discovery motions unless parties have first met to resolve any discovery difficulties. If the parties cannot reach a resolution, they are directed to jointly arrange a conference call with the Court to resolve the matter orally in court in lieu of filing a formal motion. In contravention of this order Plaintiff filed his first discovery motion on March 2, 2005. The Court denied the motion directing counsel to Paragraph J of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. A second referral to Paragraph J of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order was cited in this Court's order denying Defendants' Motion for Status Conference requesting that the Court hold a status conference to resolve outstanding discovery issues. In contravention of this Court's Rule 16 Scheduling Order, Plaintiff filed a second discovery motion on September 27, 2005. The motion was denied and counsel was directed
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 139 Filed 01/06/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dan Coogan, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV04-0621-PHX-SRB ORDER

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

for the third time to Paragraph J of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. The docket in this case also reflects that the Court has held several conferences on discovery disputes and has given direction to the parties concerning these disputes. On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed the presently pending motion captioned "Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence --and-- for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt." Despite its caption Plaintiff's motion is nothing more than another discovery motion filed in contravention of this Court's orders and in violation of LRCiv. 7.2(j). Moreover, Plaintiff's claim of spoliation is unsupported and unwarranted under the circumstances. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence --and-- for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt. (Doc. 108). Moreover, the Court will not further address the issues raised in this motion in a discovery conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Defendants the attorneys' fees incurred in responding to the motion. The attorneys' fees awarded are payable by counsel for the Plaintiff to Defendants due to Plaintiff's counsel's violations of this Court's prior orders and the Local Rule requiring personal consultation. 1

DATED this 6th day of January, 2006.

On this same date the Court issued another order striking another motion filed by Plaintiff in violation of Paragraph L of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. -2Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 139 Filed 01/06/2006 Page 2 of 2

1