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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando R. Aros III, Plaintiff, vs. Robinson, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-04-306-PHX-SRB (LOA) ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (docket # 71) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A). Plaintiff claims that Defendants have only partially disclosed relevant documents. Defendants have responded to the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply. On September 6, 2006, Plaintiff served his Second Set of Interrogatories on Defendant Schriro and a Second Set of Interrogatories on Defendant Rivas. (docket # 61) On September 11, 2006, Plaintiff served a request for production for release of his medical/psychiatric records. (docket # 62) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3) and 34(b), Defendants had thirty days in which to respond to the discovery requests. Within the thirty-day deadline, on October 4, 2006, Defendants responded to Plaintiff's request for production and produced a copy of Plaintiff's medical/psychiatric file. Defendants also responded to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories. Before Plaintiff received these responses and before the deadline for responding had passed, on October 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. (docket # 65) On November

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 78

Filed 11/28/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2, 2006, the Court denied the motion to compel based on Plaintiff's failure to certify that he had conferred with Defendants before filing the motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A) provides: If the motion is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion . . . unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant's first making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action, or that the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. FED.R.CIV.P. 37(a)(4)(A). As previously mentioned, Plaintiff's motion to compel was filed

10

without Plaintiff first having made a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute absent
11

court intervention. Additionally, Defendants timely responded to the discovery requests. The
12

record in this matter does not support awarding sanctions.
13

Accordingly,
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion for Sanctions (docket # 71) is DENIED.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2Filed 11/28/2006

DATED this 28th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 78

Page 2 of 2