Pinson v. Dukett et al
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 94 Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter Deemed Admitted is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance with the provisions of the Court's Scheduling Order. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 97 Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Response is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/29/22. (BAC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, through counsel, filed a Motion to
Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter
Deemed Admitted. (Doc. 94.) In the Motion, Plaintiff challenges Defendant United
States of America’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 4. (Id.)
On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed a Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for
Admission. (Doc. 97.) In the Consent Motion, Defendant states that the parties’ counsel
are working to resolve the matters raised in Plaintiff’s Motion, which would eliminate the
need for briefing and decision on the Motion. (Id.) Accordingly, Defendant requests,
with the consent of Plaintiff’s counsel, that the deadline for responding to the Motion be
extended to August 5, 2022. (Id.)
The Court’s Scheduling Order prohibits the parties from filing written discovery
motions without leave of Court. (Doc. 41 at 2.) In the event of a discovery dispute, the
parties must engage in personal consultation in a sincere effort to resolve the conflict
expeditiously. (Id.) If a discovery dispute cannot be resolved despite the parties’ sincere
efforts, “either party may file a request for a telephonic conference or for permission to
file a written discovery motion.” (Id. at 3.) Any such request “must specify the results of
the parties’ personal consultation and the matter(s) remaining in dispute.” (Id.)
Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court before filing her Motion to Determine
Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission. Furthermore, it appears that the
Motion was filed prematurely, as further personal consultation between the parties may
resolve the matters raised in the Motion without Court intervention.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice and with
leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance with the provisions of the
Court’s Scheduling Order, if the parties are unable to resolve the matters raised in the
Motion through further personal consultation. The Court will deny Defendant’s Consent
Motion to Extend Deadline as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection
to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter Deemed Admitted (Doc. 94) is denied
without prejudice and with leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance
with the provisions of the Court’s Scheduling Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Consent Motion to Extend
Deadline for Response (Doc. 97) is denied as moot.
Dated this 29th day of July, 2022.
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?