Sanders #146274 v. Ryan et al
Filing
131
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the objection/appeal (Doc. 129 ) to the Magistrate Judge's Order of January 24, 2018 (Doc. 120 ) is overruled to the extent that Doc. 120 is affirmed [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/1/18. (MAW)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Michael Martin Sanders,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-15-00146-PHX-JAT (DMF)
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order
denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 129). In his Order, the
Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of
Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel as to certain discovery items. (Doc. 120). The
Magistrate Judge further ordered Defendants to respond to the motion for reconsideration
as to other discovery items sought by Plaintiff. (Doc. 120). Ultimately, the Magistrate
Judge granted in part reconsideration as to the items to which the Magistrate Judge
ordered a response, but those items are not at issue in this appeal. (Doc. 128).
As is relevant for this appeal, the Magistrate Judge denied reconsideration as to:
24
25
26
27
28
this Court’s Order filed on July 24, 2017 (Doc. 97) as to Defendant Ryan’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Non-Uniform Interrogatories (Doc.
100 at 13-17 (Exh. 1)); and as to Defendant Sandoval’s Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of NonUniform Interrogatories and
Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Id. at 19-30 (Exh.
2)).
(Doc. 120 at 2).
1
In his appeal, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to
2
either make specific (as opposed to generalized) objections Plaintiff’s discovery requests,
3
or to supplement their responses.
4
Defendants opted to supplement their responses rather than file specific objections. (Id.
5
at 3-4). Finally, Plaintiff claims that the supplement was not “really” a supplement in
6
that Defendants just re-disclosed the same materials they had previously disclosed. (Id.
7
at 4-5). Thus, Plaintiff concludes that the Magistrate Judge committed clear error in
8
denying his motion for reconsideration because the supplement is inadequate. (Doc. 20 at
9
4). 1
(Doc. 129 at 3).
Plaintiff further claims that
10
The Court notes that while Plaintiff primarily claims that the supplement is not
11
adequate, Plaintiff does concede that some additional information was disclosed. (Doc.
12
129 at 5, “The supplemental response to [Plaintiff’s non-uniform interrogatories] No. 1,
13
though in italics, is merely the tautologicalation of Ryan’s initial response with a dash of
14
case law citation.”). Further, and more importantly, in this appeal Plaintiff offers no
15
explanation of what additional information was sought and not disclosed. Thus, the
16
Court cannot conclude that the Magistrate Judge committed clear error when Plaintiff has
17
failed to identify any additional information that was sought, but not disclosed.
18
Accordingly,
19
IT IS ORDERED that the objection/appeal (Doc. 129) to the Magistrate Judge’s
20
Order of January 24, 2018 (Doc. 120) is overruled to the extent that Doc. 120 is affirmed.
21
Dated this 1st day of March, 2018.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants have not responded to this appeal. The Court notes that Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) does not set a deadline for such a response.
-2-
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?