Shank v. Corizon Incorporated et al

Filing 97

*AMENDED by 98 -ORDER granting in part 94 Motion to Strike and granting 96 Motion for Extension of Time. See attachment for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/7/2021. (CLB) *Modified on 1/7/2021 (CLB).

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

David Shank,

No. CV-19-04638-PHX-ROS (JFM)
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Corizon Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On December 23, 2020, the Court ordered Corizon and Corizon employees to

16

“provide Plaintiff updated discovery responses regarding emails” by January 6, 2021.

17

(Doc. 93 at 4). Corizon and Corizon employees were also ordered to file “a statement

18

explaining which emails were provided to Plaintiff” and, if no emails were provided, a

19

declaration “explaining why no emails were available for production.” (Doc. 93 at 4).

20

Corizon and Corizon employees now seek an extension of the January 6 deadline. (Doc.

21

96 at 1).

22

According to Corizon and Corizon employees, an extension is needed because

23

they recently conducted an “extensive email search” and they need additional time to

24

“review these search results.”

25

employees represented they do not have “any email records in their possession, custody,

26

or control.” (Doc. 89 at 2). It is unclear if that assertion was knowingly incorrect or if

27

there is some other explanation. Therefore, the Court will grant the requested extension

28

of time but, when filing their explanation regarding which emails were produced to

(Doc. 96 at 1).

Previously, Corizon and Corizon

1

Plaintiff, Corizon and Corizon employees must include an explanation regarding the

2

accuracy of the representation in Doc. 89 that they did not have “any email records in

3

their possession, custody, or control.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (requiring “factual

4

contentions have evidentiary support”).

5

Finally, Corizon and Corizon employees have filed a “Notice of Errata and Motion

6

to Strike Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Defendant David

7

Shinn.” (Doc. 94). That document explains counsel for Corizon and Corizon employees

8

do not, in fact, represent Defendant David Shinn. Therefore, the portions of the answer

9

and motion for summary judgment filed by that counsel allegedly on behalf of David

10

Shinn were done in error. The motion will be granted to the extent the Court will not

11

consider the portions of the answer and motion for summary judgment (Doc. 7, 73)

12

addressing David Shinn.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 94) is GRANTED IN PART as

15

explained above.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 96) is

17

GRANTED. Corizon and Corizon employees have until January 13, 2021, to provide

18

discovery responses to Plaintiff and file an explanation on the docket.

19

Dated this 7th day of January, 2021.

20
21
22

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-