United States District Court, D. Arizona
David C. Bury, United States District Judge
filed his Second Amended Complaint, and the Defendant, the
United States, answered. On July 20, 2018, the Court issued a
case management scheduling Order, which allowed six months
for discovery with dispositive motions due 30 days after the
close of discovery. (Order (Doc. 62)).
before discovery was set to end and with a Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel pending, the Defendant sought to stay the
action because of the government shut-down. On January 7,
2019, the Court granted the stay and extended discovery for
30 days when the stay would be lifted, and all other case
management deadlines adjusted, accordingly. (Order (Doc.
stay was lifted on March 20, 2019. The Court ruled on the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, granting it in relevant
part as to his Requests for Production 6, 7, and 8. The Court
ordered the Defendant to provide a Confidentiality Agreement
to the Plaintiff for him to sign, and to subsequently produce
the requested documents. The relevant deadline for
Defendant's production responsibilities was April 20,
2019. (Order (Doc. 73)).
April 19, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel as to three Requests for Admissions and
extended discovery solely for the purpose of these answers.
In the meantime, the Plaintiff had filed a dispositive motion
on March 25, 2019, and Defendant had filed a Motion to
consolidate its Response with a Crossmotion for Summary
Judgment. The Court granted the consolidation and set the due
date for the Defendant's Response/Crossmotion to April
26, 2019. (Order (Doc. 89)).
the Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Contempt and Sanctions
and Defendant has filed a Motion for Extension of Time for
the Response/Crossmotion and a Motion for Confidentiality
the Defendants failed to comply with this Court's
directive to produce the discovery which was the subject of
the Plaintiff's Fist Motion to Compel and the Court's
March 20, 2019, Order: Requests for Production 6, 7, and 8.
The Defendants object to Plaintiff's request for
sanctions because “Defendant has complied with the
subject Orders, there is no bad faith, there is no harm to
Plaintiff, and . . . there are substantial legal and factual
defenses that Plaintiff's motion attempts to
avoid.” (Response (Doc. 95) at 2-3.) As the record
noted above reflects, the Defendant did not comply with the
directives for production contained in the Court's March
20, 2019, Order.
sanction the Plaintiff asks the Court to deem certain facts
admitted, which would be dispositive of the case. Such an
extreme sanction is not warranted because lesser measures can
address the discovery issue and ensure that there is no
prejudice to the Plaintiff. The Defendant asks that the
deadline for its Response/Crossmotion to Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment be extended again to May 20,
2019. The Court shall grant this extension of time but THERE
SHALL BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME granted in favor of
Defendant for filing its dispositive motion.
expedite the late disclosure of the Requested Productions 6,
7 and 8, the Court shall enter the Confidentiality Order even
though it directed the Defendant to produce it as a
Confidentiality Agreement to the Plaintiff. The Court has
reviewed the Confidentiality Order and finds it contains
standard provisions for release of this type of discovery.
Court shall extend the time for Plaintiff to file his Reply
in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to
the Defendant's Crossmotion for Summary Judgment. The
extension of time for Plaintiff's Reply/Response shall
accommodate his need to review the discovery that is the
subject of the Requests for Production 6, 7 and 8, including
time needed by the Plaintiff to obtain the “Review
Only” materials. (Confidentiality Order ¶ 4.) Any
new issues the Plaintiff seeks to raise after Defendant
responds to the Requests for Production 6, 7 and 8 may be
presented in the Plaintiff's Response to the
Defendant's Crossmotion for Summary Judgment. The
Plaintiff may or may not, at his discretion, combine the
Reply in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment with the
Response to the Defendant's Crossmotion for Summary
IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 91) is DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Extension
of Time (Doc. 92) is GRANTED. THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER
EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THE DEFENDANT to file the
Response/Crossmotion for Summary Judgment.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for