Arikat v. Scottsdale Ferrari LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER striking Defendant's 27 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 2/5/2019. (LFIG)

1

WO

2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Samir Mahmud Arikat,

10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-00438-PHX-DJH

Scottsdale Ferrari LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.’s

16

(“Defendant”) Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Samir Arikat (“Plaintiff”) (Doc. 27)

17

wherein Defendant seeks relief for Plaintiff’s alleged inadequate initial discovery

18

disclosures. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 32) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 33).

19

The Court finds that in bringing this motion, Defendant failed to follow the discovery

20

dispute protocol detailed in the parties’ Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. 25). Specifically,

21

this Court’s discovery dispute procedure prohibits the parties from filing written discovery

22

motions, such as this one, without leave of Court. The procedure provides as follows:

23
24
25
26
27
28

Discovery Disputes. The parties shall not file written
discovery motions without leave of Court. If a discovery
dispute arises and cannot be resolved despite sincere efforts to
resolve the matter through personal consultation (in person or
by telephone), the parties shall jointly file (1) a brief written
summary of the dispute, not to exceed two pages, with
explanation of the position taken by each party and (2) a joint
written certification that the counsel or the parties have
attempted to resolve the matter through personal consultation
and sincere effort as required by LRCiv 7.2(j) and have reached
an impasse. If the opposing party has refused to personally
consult, the party seeking relief shall describe the efforts made

to obtain personal consultation. Upon review of the filed
written summary of the dispute, the Court may set an n in-court
hearing or telephonic conference, order written briefing, or
decide the dispute without conference or briefing. If the Court
desires supplemental briefing prior to a hearing, counsel will
be notified by order of the Court. Any briefing ordered by the
Court shall also comply with LRCiv 7.2(j).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(Doc. 25 at 5). Thus, the Court will strike Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for failure to
comply with the discovery dispute procedure. Notwithstanding the February 4, 2019
Completion of Fact Discovery Deadline, the Court will allow Defendant to bring the
discovery dispute to the Court’s attention in compliance with this Court’s discovery dispute
procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff
(Doc. 27) is STRICKEN.
Dated this 5th day of February, 2019.

14
15
16
17

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-