Xcentric Ventures, LLC, et al., v. Richeson

Filing 69

ORDER AND OPINION that Richeson's 60 Motion for Summary Judgement Based on Deemed Admissions is DENIED; that Richeson's 68 1st Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; that Richeson's 67 1st Amended - Counter Claim Against Xcentric Ventures LLC. 18 USC 1512 - Witness Tampering is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/15/10. (ESL)

Download PDF
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 B e f o re the Court is Defendant Richeson's "Motion for Summary Judgement Based o n Deemed Admissions" (Doc. 60) and his "1st Amended Motion for Summary Judgment" ( D o c . 68). The Court will deny these motions. A s the title suggests, Richeson's original motion relies entirely on Xcentric's lack of re s p o n s e to his requests for admission. Richeson's "amended" motion relies on the same re q u e sts for admission. "A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties h a v e conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). It appears that R ic h e so n has not followed this Rule. Xcentric argues that it has not had a Rule 26(f) c o n f ere n c e with Richeson, and Richeson's only reply is that "Richeson and Speth had c o n f e rr e d as required under 26(f) on Friday the 22nd day of October 2010." (Doc. 62 at 3.) B u t the only communication in the record between Richeson and Speth on October 22 was X c e n tric Ventures, LLC, an Arizona ) lim ite d liability corporation, and Jaburg & ) W ilk , P.C., a professional corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) S h a w n Richeson, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) N o . CV10-1931-PHX-NVW O R D E R AND OPINION [R e : Dockets 60, 67 and 68] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF 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 27 28 a n e-mail exchange to which Richeson attached his requests for admission and stated, "I u n d e rs ta n d some of my discovery requests may be premature and obviously we have not c o n c lu d e d our 26F hearing." (Doc. 61 at 10.) Speth did not agree to obtain responses a n yw a y, but rather replied, "[W]e still have to wait until discovery opens." (Id.) If Richeson a n d Speth had actually held a Rule 26(f) conference on October 22, then they should have s u b m itte d their proposed discovery plan within 14 days of that conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 6 (f )(2 ). No such report appears on the docket. T h e Court therefore finds that Richeson served his requests for admission before the F e d e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure permitted him to do so. Accordingly, Xcentric had no o b lig a tio n to respond, see, e.g., Wada v. U.S. Secret Service, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1, 1011 ( D .D . C . 2007), and the Court will not deem the requests admitted. Absent such admitted re q u e sts , Richeson cannot show the lack of a genuine dispute over a material fact, and s u m m a ry judgment must be denied. T h e Court will also deny summary judgment for failure to specify the claims for w h ic h Richeson seeks judgment. Richeson's motion asks for judgment "resolving R ic h e s o n ' s causes of action against Xcentric." (Doc. at 5.) His only cause of action is a R IC O counterclaim. (See Doc. 48.) But Richeson has since withdrawn that counterclaim. (D o c s . 63, 64.) In his reply in support of summary judgment, Richeson offered two potential a rg u m e n ts that his motion is not moot. First, he attached an e-mail he sent to Speth stating th a t he is "looking for a final summary judgment in the capacity of defendant" (Doc. 62 at 8 ), suggesting that he now asks the Court to enter summary judgment in his favor on X c e n tric 's claims. Second, in the reply itself, he asked the Court to "wrap these deemed a d m i s s io n s around any legal doctrine that applies and enter an appropriate order using the s a m e ." (Id. at 6.) T h e Court cannot grant summary judgment in the abstract. Richeson must show an a b se n c e of genuine dispute over a material fact as it relates to an element of a claim or -2- 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 d e f en s e . The Court cannot begin that analysis without knowing the claim or defense on w h ic h Richeson seeks judgment. Further, this Court has no duty to search for a legal d o ct rin e that would entitle Richeson to judgment. Accordingly, the Court will deny summary ju d g m e n t for this reason as well. A f te r summary judgment briefing closed, Richeson filed his "1st Amended - Counter C la im Against Xcentric Ventures LLC. 18 USC 1512 - Witness Tampering." (Doc. 67.) R ic h e s o n may not file amended counterclaims without leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 5 (a )(2 ). The Court will therefore strike this document. F in a lly, the parties' summary judgment briefs show that Richeson has mailed p le a d in g s directly to Speth's home address without her consent. (Doc. 61 at 78; Doc. 62 a t 7.) The Court has previously warned Richeson about calling attorneys or parties on their h o m e telephone numbers (Doc. 37 at 10), and the Court similarly warns Richeson that m a ilin g litigation-related documents to parties' or their attorneys' home addresses is not a p p r o p r ia te absent consent or extraordinary circumstances. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Richeson's "Motion for Summary Judgement B as e d on Deemed Admissions" (Doc. 60) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richeson's "1st Amended Motion for Summary J u d g m en t" (Doc. 68) is DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richeson's "1st Amended - Counter Claim Against X c e n tric Ventures LLC. 18 USC 1512 - Witness Tampering" (Doc. 67) is STRICKEN. D A T E D this 15th day of December 2010. /S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?