Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gamez v. United States

United States District Court, D. Arizona

July 19, 2018

Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          EILEEN S. WILLETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This Order sets forth the Court's rulings on a number of pending Motions (Docs. 79, 85, 97, 98, 109, 112, 125, and 129).

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference” (Doc. 79)

         On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. 49) requesting a discovery conference. The Court granted the Motion (Doc. 49) and held a discovery conference on May 10, 2018 (Docs. 57, 76). On May 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed another Motion (Doc. 79) requesting a discovery conference. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Ryan to respond to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents. (Id. at 2).

         On June 13, 2018, defense counsel filed a Notice of Service (Doc. 102) stating that Defendant Ryan served his responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents on June 12, 2018. Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Written Notice that Defendant(s) Ryan, Pratt, Corizon and Elijah Non-Compliance with Notice of Service (‘see: dkt. 102')” (Doc. 113). In his June 21, 2018 Response (Doc. 114) to the Notice (Doc. 113), defense counsel stated that Defendant Ryan's responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents were re-sent to Plaintiff. The Court will deny Plaintiff's May 23, 2018 “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference” (Doc. 79).

         B. Plaintiff's “Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37” (Doc. 85)

         On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Compel Discovery” (Doc. 85). The Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. 31 at 3) advises the parties that the Court will not consider a motion regarding discovery matters unless (i) the parties have attempted to resolve the matter through personal consultation and sincere effort as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j) and (ii) the parties have participated in a discovery conference with the Court. Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court prior to filing his Motion to Compel (Doc. 85).

         Further, the Scheduling Order provides that if “the Court finds during the discovery conference that a briefing of the discovery dispute is necessary, the parties are instructed that motions, responses, and replies shall not exceed six pages each, and must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37.1.” (Doc. 31 at 3) (emphasis added). In violation of this provision, Plaintiff has filed a total of twelve pages of briefing in support of his Motion to Compel.[1] The Scheduling Order advises in bold letters that a non-compliant request for a discovery conference may be stricken from the record. (Id.).

         For the above reasons, the Court will strike Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 85).

         C. Plaintiff's June 7, 2018 “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference” (Doc. 97)

         On June 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a third “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference” (Doc. 97). Plaintiff requests a discovery conference “to compel Defendant Pratt to respond to the Interrogatories Request (‘First Request').” (Id. at 2). The docket reflects that Defendant Pratt served his responses to Plaintiff's “First Request for Uniform” on June 13, 2018. (Doc. 103; Doc. 111-1 at 14-19). Plaintiff's June 7, 2018 “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference” (Doc. 97) will be denied as moot.

         D. Plaintiff's June 8, 2018 “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference” (Doc. 98)

         In his fourth “Motion to Request a Discovery Conference, ” Plaintiff requests a discovery conference “to compel Defendant Corizon to Respond/Answer the Interrogatory Request (‘First Request').” (Doc. 98 at 2). Defense counsel has submitted a copy of Defendant Corizon's responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Interrogatories. (Doc. 111-1 at 2-12). After reviewing Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 98) and Defendant Corizon's responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Interrogatories, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant Corizon's objections to Plaintiff's interrogatories are so lacking in merit so as to warrant a discovery conference at this time. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 98) will be denied without prejudice. The Court will give Plaintiff leave to re-file the Motion to explain why Defendant Corizon's objections are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.