King v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 20 Motion to Compel to the following extent: plaintiff must, not later than July 26, 2010, provide defendant with a Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) computation of damages and a response to Interrogatory No. 24. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 7/14/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)

King v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Doc. 30

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 *** 5 SHANNON KING, 6 7 8 9 10 11 Before the court is defendant's Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Responses to 12 Written Discovery (#20). The court has considered the motion (#20), plaintiff's Opposition (#24), and 13 defendant's Reply (#25). Discovery in this case closed on May 18, 2010. Order (#19). Since the filing 14 of the instant Motion to Compel (#20), the parties have resolved some of the discovery issues raised 15 therein.1 Defendant seeks an order compelling plaintiff to: 1) submit a computation of damages 16 pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii); and 2) respond to defendant's Interrogatory No. 24.2 17 Computation of Damages 18 Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1(A)(iii), a party's initial disclosures must contain a "computation of 19 each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party ... including materials bearing on the nature 20 and extent of injuries suffered." Plaintiff states, "Defendant continues to request a detailed break down 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 Defendant's motion alleged that plaintiff had provided no initial disclosures, no computation of damages, and fa ile d to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25 to its Second Set of Interrogatories, and Request for Production of D o c u m e n ts No. 21. Defendant further requested that plaintiff supplement certain deposition responses. 2

Plaintiff, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:09-cv-01425-JCM-LRL ORDER

Interrogatory 24 states: P le a s e identify all damages, including but not limited to out-of-pocket expenses, which you claim t o have incurred as a result of the alleged incident/incidents giving rise to this litigation, in c lu d in g a description of each item of expense claimed, the name of the person or company to w h o m each item was paid, and the amount of each item.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of damages, however the detailed breakdown is the loss of the home." Opp'n (#24) at 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (#1-1), however, reveals that in addition to the return of her home, plaintiff prays for damages "in an amount in excess of $10,000." Complaint (#1-1) at 9. A party claiming damages has the obligation, when it makes its initial disclosures, to disclose to the other parties the best information then available to it concerning that claim, however limited and potentially changing it may be. 6-26 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 26.22. Plaintiff states that she "would like compensation for what has occurred. However, Plaintiff cannot quantify the exact amount and would leave the same to the trier of fact." Opp'n (#24) at 2. Still, she must provide a computation in support of her claim of at least $10,000 in damages. Her failure to do so may result in exclusion of such evidence pursuant to Rule 37. Interrogatory No. 24 Plaintiff did not respond, even to object, to Interrogatory No. 24. In her Opposition (#24), she directs the court's attention to answers to other interrogatories, Exh. 2 to Opp'n (#24), and states, "the question regarding damages has been responded to properly." Id. Interrogatory No. 24 is not duplicative of these other interrogatories, nor is plaintiff's response to other written discovery a response to the specific demands of Interrogatory No. 24. Plaintiff does not assert, nor does the court find, that Interrogatory No. 24 is outside the proper scope of discovery. Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Responses to Written Discovery (#20) is GRANTED to the following extent: plaintiff must, not later than July 26, 2010, provide defendant with a Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) computation of damages and a response to Interrogatory No. 24. DATED this 14th day of July, 2010.

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2