Schreckendgust et al v. Associated Materials, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is also denied. No sanctions or fees to either party. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 1/14/2015. (dle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

BAMBINETTE AND MICHAEL
SCHRECKENDGUST, as Parents and
Guardians of TYLER
SCHRECKENDGUST, a minor,

CV 13–205–M–DWM

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, and
JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendant.
Plaintiffs Bambinette and Michael Schreckendgust (“Plaintiffs”) have
moved for Rule 37(c) discovery sanctions. (Doc. 16.) The dispute was argued on
January 14, 2015.
The matter before the Court is a discovery dispute that arises from a
difference between what was asked in interrogatories and requests for admission
and what was understood by the responding party when responding to arguably
ambiguous questions. There is a reasonable language dispute here for which
presentation to the jury, not sanctions, is the appropriate remedy.
Additionally, the parties failed to meet and substantively confer before the
-1-

current motion was brought. Although the parties had a brief telephone
conversation regarding Plaintiffs’ intention to bring the motion, the Local Rule
requires that before any discovery motion1 is brought, the parties must meet,
confer, and try to resolve their differences. L.R. 26.3(c)(1). The rule is designed
to avoid “fight to the last gasp”2 problems over matters that can be professionally
resolved by talking.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 16) is
DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is also DENIED. No sanctions or
fees to either party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A, B).
Dated this 14th day of January, 2015.

1

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (titled “Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in
Discovery; Sanctions”).
2

King Henry VI, Pt. I, I.ii.127.
-2-