Davis v. Law Office of D. Scott Carruthers

Filing 82

MINUTE ORDER. ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery 70 is DENIED AS MOOT in part and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 08/01/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00414-RPM-KLM
REBECCA DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAW OFFICE OF D. SCOTT CARRUTHERS,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket
No. 70; Filed July 6, 2012] (the “Motion”). On May 18, 2012, Final Judgment was entered
in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $15,164.15 [#65, #66]. On July 6,
2012, Plaintiff filed the present Motion, seeking to compel responses to written discovery
served on Defendant on May 24, 2012 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, and 69(a)(2).
Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery. See
Motion [#70] at 4. On July 17, 2012, D. Scott Carruthers filed Defendant’s Response to
Rule 33 Interrogatories [#80] and Defendant’s Response to Rule 34 Request for Production
[#81].1 However, no Response to the Motion itself has been timely filed. Based on the
filing of the responses to the written discovery, Plaintiff’s Motion appears to be moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#70] is DENIED AS MOOT in part and
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part. The Motion is denied as moot to the extent that
it seeks responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery. The Motion is denied without prejudice
to the extent that it seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. In consideration of the
present circumstances surrounding the discovery issue, i.e., Defendant’s apparent
compliance in responding to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, Plaintiff may, if she so
desires, file an amended request for sanctions.

Dated: August 1, 2012

1

The Court notes that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1), discovery requests and
responses, including interrogatories and requests for production, must not be filed on the docket
until they are used in the proceeding or the Court orders them to be filed.