Prosight-- Syndicate 1110 At Lloyd's v. American Builders and Developers LLC
Filing
217
ORDER denying 181 Motion for Sanctions. See order for details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 10/23/2019. (LMR)
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Prosight-- Syndicate 1110 At Lloyd’s, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
American Builders and Developers
)
)
LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
No. CV-17-04662-PHX-SPL
ORDER
15
Plaintiff Prosight-- Syndicate 1110 At Lloyd’s (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against
16
American Builders and Developers LLC (“ABD”) seeking a declaratory judgment that it
17
is not liable to indemnify ABD for any damages awarded pursuant to Maria Virginia
18
Huizache and Florenciano Axinicuilteco’s (the “Claimants”) lawsuit.1 The Court issued
19
an Order (Doc. 143) granting the Claimants’ motion for summary judgment (the “SJ
20
Motion”) (Doc. 74). The Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 146), and the
21
Court granted the motion for reconsideration and vacated its Order granting the SJ Motion.
22
(Doc. 184) After the Court’s ruling on the SJ Motion, the Claimants supplemented their
23
discovery
24
correspondence between Claimants’ counsel and ABD’s counsel.
disclosures
with
several
documents
(the
“Documents”),
including
25
26
27
28
1
In January 2016, the employee of a subcontractor was killed while working at the
location of ABD’s construction project. The Claimants, as the decedent’s parents, brought
a wrongful death action against ABD, among others, in Arizona state court. The Claimants
stepped into the shoes of ABD to defend this case.
1
The Plaintiff filed this motion for sanctions (the “Motion”) seeking sanctions against
2
the Claimants for their delayed disclosure of the Documents. (Doc. 181) The Plaintiff
3
argues that the Claimants waited to disclose the Documents in order to influence the
4
Court’s ruling on the SJ Motion. (Doc. 181-1 at 6) The Motion was fully briefed on July
5
8, 2019, and oral argument was requested. (Docs. 186, 187) Because it would not assist in
6
resolution of the instant issues, the Court finds the pending motion is suitable for decision
7
without oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141
8
F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court’s ruling is as follows.
9
A party that fails to provide information required by Rule 26(a) or (e) “is not allowed
10
to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial,
11
unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). A
12
district court has “particularly wide latitude” in its discretion to issue sanctions under Rule
13
37(c)(1). Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 859 (9th Cir. 2014).
14
The Plaintiff moves for sanctions against the Claimants, arguing that they failed to
15
produce the Documents in discovery until after the Court had ruled on the Claimants’ SJ
16
Motion. (Doc. 181 at 2) The Plaintiff argues that the Claimants intentionally withheld the
17
Documents in order to obtain a favorable ruling on the SJ Motion based on “an incomplete
18
and inaccurate record of the facts.” (Doc. 181 at 3) The Plaintiff does not address whether
19
the Claimants’ delayed disclosure was substantially justifiable. Instead, the Plaintiff argues
20
that the Claimants’ delayed disclosure was not harmless because the delayed disclosure (i)
21
prevented the Court from considering the withheld evidence in deciding the SJ Motion; (ii)
22
provided evidence that is dispositive of the Claimants’ counterclaims; and (iii) prevented
23
the Plaintiff from asserting arguments related to the Claimants’ stipulated judgment with
24
ABD. (Doc. 181-1 at 14)
25
In response, the Claimants argue that the Motion should be denied because they did
26
not violate FRCP 37. (Doc. 186 at 9) The Claimants state that the Documents were not
27
requested by the Plaintiff, and the Claimants only disclosed the Documents in order for the
28
record in this case to remain consistent with the records in two related cases pending before
2
1
the Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 186 at 3) The Claimants do not substantively
2
address whether their delayed disclosure was substantially justified. Instead, the Claimants
3
provide the Court with a detailed explanation of the timing of their supplemental
4
disclosures of the Documents. (Doc. 186 at 3–6) Separately, the Claimants argue that their
5
delayed disclosure was harmless because (i) the Plaintiff was able to depose witnesses
6
about the Documents; (ii) the Documents were disclosed prior to the discovery deadline on
7
July 26, 2019; and (iii) the Court has already vacated its ruling on the SJ Motion.
8
At this time, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose sanctions against
9
the Claimants. The Court is persuaded by the Claimants’ statement that the Documents,
10
which are primarily communications between Claimants’ counsel and ABD’s counsel, are
11
not the type of material that is generally or immediately discoverable. The Court is not
12
persuaded by the Plaintiff’s arguments related to the SJ Motion, as the Court has already
13
granted the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and vacated its Order granting the SJ
14
Motion. (Doc. 184) Furthermore, the Court’s review of the Documents demonstrates that
15
the correspondence between Claimants’ counsel and ABD’s counsel did not harbor any
16
“smoking gun” statements or admissions about the viability of this case.
17
correspondence reflected expected conversations amongst counsel seeking to develop a
18
litigation strategy. The Court also finds that the Documents were disclosed prior to the
19
discovery deadline, and the Plaintiff has not been prejudiced because it has been able to
20
depose multiple people on the issues described in the Documents. (Doc. 179 at 2; Doc. 187
21
at 5) For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the delayed disclosure of the Documents
22
was harmless and does not require sanctions under FRCP 37.
23
Accordingly,
24
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 181) is denied.
25
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2019.
26
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
27
28
3
The
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?