Arizona School Risk Retention Trust Incorporated v. NMTC Incorporated et al

Filing 114

ORDER: defendant NMTC, Inc.'s d/b/a Matco Tools' [sic] Motion to Strike Notice of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of Professional Tool Products, LLC 113 is denied without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/21/2015. (LMR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NMTC, Inc., d/b/a Matco Tools, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
Arizona School Risk Retention Trust,
Inc.,

No. CV-14-08009-PCT-PGR
ORDER

16

On August 20, 2015, defendant Professional Tool Products LLC filed an

17

Objection and Motion to Strike Notice of Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition

18

of Professional Tool Products, LLC (Doc. 113).1

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The Court notes that the objection and motion was improperly captioned
as being filed by defendant NMTC, Inc.
The Court also notes that the caption fails to fully comply with the party
name capitalization rule of LRCiv. 7.1(a) notwithstanding that the Court has on five
previous occasions ordered the parties to comply with the rule, and notwithstanding
that NMTC and PTC’s lead counsel has certified that his law firm had corrected its
procedures to comply with the rule. (See Doc. 98).
The Court further notes that the objection and motion refers to a Fed.R.Civ.P.
30(b)(6) notice that the plaintiff served on August 11, 2015. The Court’s record
contains no notice by the plaintiff that the discovery request was served
notwithstanding the requirement of LRCiv 5.2 that such a notice must be filed with
the Court. The parties are admonished that proper notices of service must be filed

1

To the extent that the document is actually meant to be a motion to strike, as

2

opposed to merely being an objection to a discovery notice, the Court will summarily

3

deny it as being filed in violation of the Court’s previous order specifying what must

4

be filed with a discovery-related order. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order

5

(Doc. 95) that stated:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

The Court will, however, admonish counsel that they will not be allowed to file
any future motion with the Court that in any manner relates to a discovery
dispute without fully complying with LRCiv 7.2(j) (“No discovery motion will be
considered or decided unless a statement of moving counsel is attached
thereto certifying that after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so,
counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter. Any discovery
motion brought before the Court without prior personal consultation with the
other party and sincere effort to resolve the matter, may result in sanctions.”)
Any future discovery-related motion must contain a separate
certification statement complying with LRCiv 7.2(j) signed by the moving
party’s lead counsel, regardless of which counsel actually signs the motion.
... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no future discovery-related motion shall
be filed unless it fully complies with the certification requirement of moving
counsel as set forth in this Order. (Emphasis in original).

17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant NMTC, Inc.’s d/b/a Matco

18

Tools’ [sic] Motion to Strike Notice of Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of

19

Professional Tool Products, LLC (Doc. 113) is denied without prejudice.

20

DATED this 21st day of August, 2015.

21
22
23
24
25
26

with the Court.
-2-