Massoli v. Regan Media, et al

Filing 102

Massoli v. Regan Media, et al

Doc. 102

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 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

J E N N A) ) ) Plaint iff, ) ) ) vs. ) REGAN M EDIA and JUDITH REGAN, an) ) individual, ) Defendant s. ) ) RE GAN M EDIA, INC., a New York) corp orat ion, and JUDITH REGAN, an) ) individual, ) Defendant s/C o u n t e r c l a i m ant s,) ) ) vs. ) J E N N A M A SSO L I , p / k/a J E N N A) ) JAM ESON, an individual, ) ) Plaint iff/Count erdefendant , ) ) and ) JAY GRDINA, an individual, and DOLCE) ) AM ORE, INC., a Colorado corporation, ) ) Count erdefendant s. ) J E N N A M A SSO L I JAM ESON, p /k /a

No. CIV 05-0854-PHX-EHC O RDER

Pendin g before the Court are Defendant/Counterclaimant Regan M edia's M ot ion to Comp el [dkt. 68] and Second M ot ion to Compel and Request for Sanctions [dkt. 78]. The M ot ions are fully briefed.

Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC

Document 102

Filed 05/23/2006

Page 1 of 4
Dockets.Justia.com

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 27 28

On January 5, 2006, Regan M edia filed a M o t i o n to Compel, seeking an order co mp ellin g P lain t if f /C o u n t er d ef en d an t and Count e r d e f e n d a n t s (collect i v e l y ,

Cou n t e r d e f endant s) to respond to Regan M edia's First Request for Production of Document s, which was served on N o v ember 4, 2005, and awarding Regan M edia its e xp e n s e s and at t o r n e y s ' fees incurred in bringing the M ot ion to Compel. with

Count erdefendant s allege that they failed to respond because they were bus y

act ivit ies in the adult film industry. Counterdefendants agreed to res p o n d to the Request for Production wit h i n 15 days of January 23, 2006 and to pay the costs and attorneys' incurred by Regan M edia in bringing t h e M o t ion to Compel. [Dkt. 74, p. 4]. On February 9, 2006, Counterdefendants served their Response to the Request for Production. On February 17, 2006, Regan M e d ia filed a Second M ot ion to Compel, alleging that t he Response to the Request for Production is incomplete and contains improper object ions. A "party upon whom the request [for production] is served shall serve a writ t en response within 30 days aft e r t h e s e r v ice of the request." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). The Ni n t h Circuit has found "that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection." Richmark Corp . v. T i m b er Falling Consult ant s, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (objections waived where not raised in a t imely res p o n s e to the request for production). Here, the Request for Production was served on Counterdefendants on November 4, 2005. Counterdefendants did not respond t o the Request for Production until February 9, 2006. Because their response was two mont hs late, Counterdefendants waived their objections to the Request for Production. T he Court will order Counterdefendants, pursuant to the Second M ot ion to Compel, to resp ond fully and without objection to the Request for Production by M ay 31, 2006. Count erdefendant s argue that they have produced all documents responsive to a number of the document requests. T h e Court does not accept that argument because

Count erdefendant s admit they have attended to their activities in the adult film industry t o the det r i ment of their obligation to participate in discovery in this case. Given that

Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC

Document 102

-2Filed 05/23/2006

Page 2 of 4

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 27 28

hist ory , Count e r d e f endant s will be ordered to describe their efforts to find documents in resp onse to the Request for Production. Cou n t e r d e f e n dant s failed to sign their Responses to Regan M edia's First Set of Int errogat ories as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). They will be ordered to do so. Accordingly , IT IS ORD ERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant Regan M edia's M ot ion to Compel [ d k t . 68] and Second M ot ion to Compel and Request for Sanctions [dkt. 78] are GRAN T ED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Counterdefendants shall respond fully and without objection to Defendant/Counterclaimant Regan M edia's Fir s t Request for Production of Documents by May 31, 2006. The Response shall include a description of their effort s t o find documents in response to the First Request for Product ion of Documents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Counterdefendants shall sign their Responses to Defendant/Counterclaimant Regan M edia's First Set of Int errogat ories by May 31, 2006. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Counterdefendants shall pay, as agreed, Defendant/Counterclaimant Regan M edia's reasonable expenses and at t orney s' fees incurred in filing the M ot ion to Compel. // // // // // // // //

Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC

Document 102

-3Filed 05/23/2006

Page 3 of 4

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 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Count erclaimant Regan M edia's request for reasonable expenses and attorney s ' fees incurred in filing the Second M ot ion to Compel and Request for Sanctions is DENIED, without prejudice to reurging upon the filing of a Sup p lement al M emor a n d u m setting forth the reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in filing the Second M ot ion to Compel and Request for Sanctions. If a Sup p lement al M emorandum is filed, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant and Counterdefendants may file a Responsive M emorandum within 10 days. DAT ED this 22nd day of M ay , 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00854-EHC

Document 102

-4Filed 05/23/2006

Page 4 of 4