Free Response - 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

TERRY GODDARD Attorney General CATHERINE M. BOHLAND Assistant Attorney General Bar No. 022124 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ARMANDO ROBERTO AROS III, Plaintiff, v. ROBINSON, et al., Defendants. Defendants1, by and through undersigned counsel, respond to Plaintiff's request for sanctions (Dkt. 70) and request the Court to deny Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff misleads the Court as to the facts surrounding disclosure of evidence and as such, sanctions are not warranted. On September 6, 2006, Plaintiff served a Second Set of Interrogatories on Defendant Schriro and a Second Set of Interrogatories on Defendant Rivas. (Dkt. 61.) On September 11, 2006, Plaintiff served a request for production for release of his medical/psychiatric records. (Dkt. 62.) Defendants have 30 days to respond to discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33(b)(3) and 34(b). On October 4, 2006, Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff's request for production and provided a copy of his
1

No: CV04-306 PHX SRB (LOA) DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. 70)

Schaulin, Duarte, Schriro and Rivas. Document 70 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

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

medical/psychiatric file, as well as the answers to the second set of interrogatories directed to Defendants Schriro and Rivas. On October 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a premature Motion to Compel Discovery. (Dkt. 65.) Plaintiff incorrectly asserts in his Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 70) that in response to his Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 65), Defendant's mailed the medical/psychiatric records and answers to his second set of interrogatories. The medical/psychiatric records and answers to the second set of interrogatories by Defendants Schriro and Rivas were sent on October 4, 2006, in response to his discovery requests sent on September 6, 2006 (Dkt. 61) and September 11, 2006 (Dkt. 62). In addition, Defendants responded to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 65) and other untimely requests for discovery (Dkt.'s 63, 64) on October 19, 2006. (Dkt.'s 66, 67, 68.) As noted in Defendants' Response to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff failed to comply with LRCiv 7.2(j), by not advising counsel that there was a discovery dispute nor did he certify in his motion that he made a good faith effort to resolve this matter without intervention by the Court. (Dkt. 67). An award of expenses is not allowed where the movant failed to confer with the respondent in good faith prior to filing the motion. (See Comments Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.) For the reasons set forth above, there is no basis in fact or law to support Plaintiff's request for sanctions, therefore, Defendants respectfully request the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of October, 2006. TERRY GODDARD Attorney General

s/Catherine M. Bohland Catherine M. Bohland Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 70

2

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Original and one copy filed this 25th day of October, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Copy mailed the same date to: Armando R. Aros III #95001 ASPC ­ Eyman/Rynning Unit P.O. Box 3100 Florence, AZ 85232 Plaintiff Pro Se s/A. Palumbo Legal Secretary to Catherine M. Bohland IDS05-0367/RM#___________ 984320

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 70

3

Filed 10/25/2006

Page 3 of 3