Davis v. Law Office of D. Scott Carruthers

Filing 87

ORDER denying 83 Motion for Sanctions for Defendant's Failure to Comply With Discovery by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 09/18/12.(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.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions for
Defendant’s Failure to Comply With Discovery [Docket No. 83; Filed August 2, 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 a 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). [#70]. Plaintiff also sought monetary
sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery. See id. 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]. Based on the filing of the
responses to the written discovery, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion as moot but allowed
Plaintiff to file an amended request for sanctions if she so desired. Defendant has failed
to file a Response to the present Motion.
In the Motion [#83], Plaintiff seeks a monetary sanction of $580.00 to compensate
for two hours of attorney time spent in preparing Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

[#70]. Motion [#83]; Decl. of Lee [#83-2] at 3. Plaintiff seeks these sanctions pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Motion [#83] at 2. That provision allows the Court to impose
monetary sanctions of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees on a party or attorney who
fails to comply with a Court order. See Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc., 688
F.3d 673, 678 (10th Cir. 2012). In connection with the Motion to Compel Discovery, Plaintiff
fails to direct the Court’s attention to any Court order with which Defendant failed to comply.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#83] is DENIED.

Dated: September 18, 2012

-2-