Ramos v. Penzone et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying as moot 44 Motion for Requesting Discovery Conference; denying as moot 52 Motion to Compel Discovery Response; granting in part 55 Motion to Amend Discovery Rule 26. Striking the Doc. 56 and Doc. 47 . Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Service of Plaintiff's Rule 26.1 Supplemental Disclosure Statement within 20 days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 2/13/18. (DXD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Pedro Ramos, No. CV-17-00205-PHX-DLR (ESW) Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Discovery Conference 17 (Doc. 44), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Response (Doc. 52), “Defendants’ 18 Response to Order (Doc. 51) Requesting Status of Discovery Disputes and Response to 19 Motion to Compel (Doc. 52)” (Doc. 53), Notice of Service of Defendants’ Rule 26.1 20 Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 54), and Plaintiff’s Rule 15.1 Request to 21 Amend Discovery Rule 26 (Doc. 55). 22 Plaintiff sought a discovery conference to obtain documents requested in 23 Plaintiff’s Request for Production which were not produced. In his Motion to Compel 24 Discovery Response (Doc. 52), Plaintiff indicates with specificity which documents 25 Defendants failed to produce. 26 documents which are in Defendants’ possession as requested (Doc.53 at 3). Plaintiff 27 indicates that he is “now fully complete with his discovery process.” (Doc. 55 at 2). 28 The Court finds that a discovery conference is not necessary at this time. Plaintiff has Defendants assert that they now have produced all 1 received all discovery sought, and his Motion to Compel is now moot. 2 Plaintiff additionally requests permission of the Court to file a Rule 26 (a)(1) 3 supplemental disclosure statement inclusive of the information received in Defendants’ 4 Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement. Rather than filing a Notice of Service of his 5 supplemental disclosures, Plaintiff has lodged the supplemental disclosure statement 6 itself. Discovery deadlines were extended by Order of the Court filed December 28, 7 2017 (Doc. 48), and Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosure is well within the modified 8 deadlines. However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) states that “disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)… 9 must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing….” 10 LRCiv 5.2 provides that “[a] ‘Notice of Service’ of the disclosures and discovery requests 11 and responses listed in Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed 12 within a reasonable time after service of such papers.” Plaintiff has not “used” the lodged 13 supplemental disclosure in the proceeding (e.g. by relying upon it in support of a motion, 14 supporting a motion to compel, etc.). 15 supplemental disclosure instead of a “Notice of Service” is in violation of LRCiv 5.2 and 16 Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court will grant 17 Plaintiff leave to supplement his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure and to file a Notice of Service 18 of his supplemental disclosure deemed served on the date of lodging, February 8, 2018 19 (Doc. 55). However, the Court will strike the lodged document (Doc. 56) as a violation 20 of LRCiv 5.2 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). See LRCiv 7.2(m) (allowing the Court to strike 21 any part of a filing that is not authorized by rule). Therefore, Plaintiff’s filing of the actual 22 Based on the above, 23 IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Discovery 24 25 26 27 28 Conference (Doc. 44). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Response (Doc. 52). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part “Plaintiff’s Rule 15.1 Request to Amend Discovery Rule 26” (Doc. 55) as set forth herein. -2- 1 IT IS FUTHER ORDERED striking the documents lodged at Doc. 56 and Doc. 2 47. 3 Disclosure Statement within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Order. His Rule 26.1 4 Supplemental Disclosure Statement lodged at Doc. 56 is deemed served on Defendants 5 on February 8, 2018. 6 December 26, 2017 is deemed served on the date of filing. 7 Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Service of Plaintiff’s Rule 26.1 Supplemental Plaintiff’s Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement (Doc. 47) filed Dated this 13th day of February, 2018. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?