Free Motion for Sanctions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I FILED ___ LODG
____ RECEIVED _A Copy
1 Il I
Amanda R. Ame 111, #95001 _@y_119_. DCT 2 0 gggg; ,
2 Plaintiff Pro se CLERK U S
PC - E an/R}mm’n U ' DISTH “ · .
R?). Box {Fic g mt B`, D'*“'”""' OF A}§;<%£»gR
3 Florence, Arizona 85232
4
5
( 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
i 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 RMANDO R. AROS III, CV 04-306-PHX-SRB (LOA)
l° Pzmrgjf,
1]. vs .
12 OBINSON, et al, y NOTIFICATION OF PARTIAL
DISCLOSURE BY DEFENDANT S;
1 3 Respondent, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
14
15
16 Plaintiff, Armando R. Aros III, pro se, hereby notifies the Court that, since the
1 7 filing of his Motion to Compel Discovery on October 3, 2006, the Defendants have
18 offered a partial disclosure of relevant documents. Nevertheless, for the reasons
1 9 advanced herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to order sanctions pursuant
20 to Rule 37(a) (4) (A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 I
22
23 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ZOU1 day of October, 2006 by:
2 4
2 6 Armando R. Arcs HI
Plaintiff Pro se
1
Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB Document 71 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 3 l
`

1 RELEVANT FACTS
2 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts proffered in his Motion to Compel
3 Discovery (”MCD”) filed October 3, 2006 and presently before the Court. See MCD at
4 pp. 2-3
5 Following submission of the above—referenced motion, the Defendants mailed
6 to Plaintiff the following documents on October 4, 2006: (1) Plaintiff's
2 medical/psychiatric file, and; (2) Defendants Schriro and Rivas’ responses to Plaintiff’s
8 2**** Set of interrogatories to those defendants. Still pending with the Defendants are
9 Plaintiffs requests for docmnents as described in his MCD, pp. 3-5.
10
li LAW AND ARGUMENT
12 The purpose of this motion is twofold: to notify the Court of the Defendants’
I3 partial disclosure and to request sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a) (4) (A), Fed. R. Civ.
14 P., which provides:
I5 ”(4) Expenses and Sanction.
16 (A) If the motion [to compel] is granted or if disclosure or discovery is
provided after the motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an
U opportunity to be heard, require the party. . . whose conduct
18 necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct
or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses
19 incurred in making the motion, including attomey's fees . . .".
20 [emphasis supplied]
21 Plaintiff spent approximately five (5) hours drafting and preparing his MCD.
22 See exhibit A. In acquiring the requisite number of copies to serve on the Court and
23 the Defendants, Plaintiff spent exactly $11.00 from his inmate accoimt. Id at 'II 2; see
2 4 also exhibit B.
25 Pursuant to Rule 3?(a)(4“)(A), Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable compensation if
26 the sought after discovery was provided after his motion was filed. In the present
2
Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB Document 71 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 matter, Plaintiff’s MCD was filed on October 3, 2006, but the Defendants partial
2 disclosure was not mailed until October 4, 2006. In addition, although the Defendants
3 were notified of these requests nearly a month prior to the Court' s September 30, 2006,
1 4 discovery dispute deadline (see MCD at exhibits E and F; Dkt. 56) they made no effort
5 to contact Plaintiff prior to that date to inform him that responses to his requests were
6 forthcoming. Rather, the Defendants offered their partial disclosure only after Plaintiff
1 had expended the resources necessary to notify the Court of the dispute. Accordingly,
8 Plaintiff contends that reasonable compensation is justified in relation to his pending
9 Motion to Compel.
1 0
1 1 concwsron
12 Pursuant to Rule 3'7(a)(4)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff respectfully requests the
13 Court to order the Defendants to pay Plaintiff a total of $36.00 in sanctions, accounted
11 for as follows:
15 (1) $11.00 for monies spent obtaining requisite copies of Plaintiff’s MCD;
16 (2) $25.00 for the five (5) hours Plaintiff spent drafting and preparing his MCD.
17 Additionally, Plaintiff grounds his request on either, or both of the following
18 theories:
19 (A) that compensation is warranted because the Defendants. provided sought
2 U after discovery only after Plaintiff submitted his Motion to Compel, and/or;
21 (B) in the event that the Court grants Plaintiffs MCD, that compensation is
22 warranted relative to Plaintiff having obtained a favorable ruling thereon.
23
21 Signed fféfhm El; Dated ID /2.0 /O£a·
2 5
2 6
3
Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB Document 71 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 71

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 71

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 71

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 3 of 3