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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The court has before it three separate motions which suggest that there is a breakdown 17 of civility and professionalism between the lawyers representing the defendants DiMaano 18 and Figueroa, and the lawyers representing Northland Insurance Company. The tone of the 19 memoranda suggests that the lawyers are more interested in quarreling with each other over 20 litigation tactics than in helping their clients resolve the merits of the underlying dispute. 21 Counsel are directed to read the Lawyers Creed of Professionalism of the State Bar of 22 Arizona as appearing on page six of the 2005-2006 Membership Directory and this court's 23 Code of Conduct for Attorneys, appearing at www.azd.uscourts.gov. At all events, we now 24 decide the motions. 25 The court has before it the defendants DiMaano's and Figueroa's motion for sanctions 26 (doc. 48), Northland's response, and Northland's supplemental response. Defendants claim 27 that plaintiff filed the action against them in violation of Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. But neither 28
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 88 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA I N S U R A N C E) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) C O R R E C T I O N A L M E D I C A L) ) SERVICES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) NORTHLAND COMPANY, No. CV-04-347-PHX-FJM 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

the motion nor the responses suggest that there are any issues here other than those that are ordinarily resolved on summary judgment. The motion for sanctions should not have been filed. IT IS ORDERED DENYING the motion for sanctions (doc. 48). The court has before it defendants DiMaano's and Figueroa's motion to stay proceedings (doc. 72), plaintiff's response, and defendants' Correctional Medical Services, et al.'s response. The defendants have failed to show any undue hardship if this federal action goes forward. There is neither an identity of parties nor of issues between the proceeding here and that in the state court. Moreover, we would not stay this action even if the parties stipulated to a stay. The court has an independent interest in moving cases along, and the Rule 16 scheduling order in this case will bring this case to conclusion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the defendants DiMaano's and Figueroa's motion to stay proceeding (doc. 72). The court has before it plaintiff's motion for order re deposition of defendants DiMaano and Figueroa (doc. 79), defendants Correctional Medical Services Inc., et al's joinder, the defendants DiMaano's and Figueroa's response, and plaintiff's reply. This motion, more than the others, shows just how far the relationships between the lawyers have deteriorated. In addition, counsel have violated this court's Rule 16 scheduling order which specifically provides that discovery "motions, responses and replies shall not exceed two pages each." Order of March 15, 2005 at 4, ¶ 9. The parties are quarreling over the timing and scope of depositions. Lawyers have a professional obligation to decide these matters in accordance with the codes of professionalism referred to above, without judicial intervention. Plaintiff has the right to take defendants' depositions in this action. On the other hand, all lawyers have a professional obligation to minimize the cost and expense associated with civil litigation and therefore have an obligation to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. Thus, the defendants have an obligation to appear for their depositions in this action, and plaintiff has an obligation not to ask questions that are duplicative of questions already asked in other depositions. No notice of deposition should ever be filed without first consulting opposing counsel and -2Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 88 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 2 of 3

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

working out the details of timing and schedules. IT IS ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part plaintiff's motion for order re deposition of defendants DiMaano and Figueroa (doc. 79). DiMaano and Figueroa shall appear for their depositions, but counsel shall ask no question that has already been asked and answered. The parties have greatly expanded the costs associated with this issue by their needlessly lengthy and acrimonious memoranda. Their clients should not bear costs incurred that are in direct violation of this court's Rule 16 scheduling order. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall not charge their clients for the motion, response, and reply filed in connection with the depositions of DiMaano and Figueroa. If they have already billed their clients for these amounts and have been paid, they shall refund to their clients any such amounts. DATED this 19th day of October, 2005.

-3Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 88 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 3 of 3