Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Christine Bailey Stutz (#19664) CITY OF MESA ATTORNEY'S OFFICE P.O. Box 1466 Mesa, Arizona 85211-1466 Telephone: (480) 644-2343 Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jaime A. Anderson, a single man, Plaintiff, vs. City of Mesa; Nathan Sund, #13321, a City of Mesa Police Officer, JANE DOE Sund, (Honorable Mary H. Murguia) Defendants. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S "ORDER FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE/PRODUCE DOCUMENTS" CV'03 1630 PHX MHM

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

Defendants hereby respond to Plaintiff's recently filed document captioned "Order for Failure to Provide/Produce Documents" ("Plaintiff's Order"). Defendants construe this document as a motion to compel and request for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2). Plaintiff's motion should be denied. As this Court will recall, on or about January 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production," seeking an order compelling Defendants to produce certain documents ("Plaintiff's Reply"). Defendants had never received any request from Plaintiff following their response to Plaintiff's request for production, and on February 1, 2005, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's "Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production" and Motion to Strike ("Defendants' Response"). At the status conference on March 31, 2005, Defendants' counsel advised the

Case 2:03-cv-01630-MHM

Document 61

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 1 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

Court that the audiotapes requested by Plaintiff were lost and that no pictures were taken of the scene (as was advised to Plaintiff by letter dated January 31, 2005, attached as Exhibit A(1) to Defendants' Response). Plaintiff's Reply, seeking sanctions, was denied, and Defendants' Response was deemed moot. [See Minute Entry dated March 31, 2005.] Since that time, Plaintiff has made no further contact with Defendants' counsel about these matters. Defendants' counsel has already avowed to the Court that all of the requested information that is available has been provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Order should therefore be denied. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of November, 2005.

/s Christine Bailey Stutz Christine Bailey Stutz Assistant City Attorney

Case 2:03-cv-01630-MHM

-2Document 61

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ORIGINAL electronically transmitted this 1st day of November, 2005 with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF System for filing; And a COPY served by mail on the following, who is not a registered participant of the CM/ECF System: Jaime A. Anderson, #152884 ASPC-Douglas, Mohave P.O. Box 5002 Douglas, Arizona 85608 Plaintiff Pro Se And a COPY mailed to:

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I:\Litigation\Anderson\pleadings\Response to Plaintiff's Order for Failure to Produce Docs.doc

Hon. Mary H. Murguia United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 525 401 West Washington Street, SPC 53 Phoenix, Arizona 85003

/s Paula Read

Case 2:03-cv-01630-MHM

-3Document 61

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 3 of 3