Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al

Filing 156

ORDERED that defendant Brent Jones' Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses 114 is granted to the extend that plaintiffs, not later than 5/10/2011, shall serve Brent Jones with verified supplemental responses to the interrogatories. FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the motion 114 is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 5/4/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8

COPPER SANDS HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00510-GMN-LRL
ORDER

14

Before the court is defendant Brent Jones Services, Inc.’s (“Brent Jones”) Motion to Compel

15

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Responses (#114). The court has considered the motion (#114), plaintiffs’

16

Opposition (#126), and Brent Jones’ Reply (#133). For the following reasons, the motion will be

17

granted in part.

18

Plaintiffs in this construction defects, fraud, and conspiracy case are owners of condominiums

19

in the Copper Sands Condominium complex, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs allege that the

20

owners, developers and marketers of Copper Sands failed to fully disclose alleged construction defects

21

at the complex during the marketing and sale of the condos, and fraudulently induced them to enter into

22

purchase agreements by misrepresenting the extent of the defects, and reserves to fix the defects.

23

Further, plaintiffs allege that the owners, developers and marketers withheld information from or

24

provided incomplete information to the lenders for these units, so as to obtain loan approval for

25

purchase of the units.

26

One such lender, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., retained Brent Jones to appraise certain units

1

during the sales process. Brent Jones maintains that of the seventeen individual plaintiffs in this action,

2

it performed appraisals for only four of the units owned by individual plaintiffs. It did not perform work

3

on behalf of the Copper Sands Home Owners Association (“HOA”) or the developer of the property.

4

Other appraisals were performed by third parties who have not been brought into this action.

5

Nevertheless, all plaintiffs, including the HOA, have set forth causes of action against Brent Jones.

6

On August 25 and September 23, 2010, Brent Jones served a set of interrogatories on each of

7

the plaintiffs. The interrogatories elicited information and the factual bases regarding Brent Jones’

8

alleged liability, plus information regarding appraisals. Because only four of the plaintiffs’ condos were

9

appraised individually by Brent Jones, it expected the responses to differ, depending on whether or not

10

the respondent was one of those four plaintiffs whose condo had been appraised by Brent Jones.

11

Plaintiffs timely responded; however, their individual responses were largely identical.

12

Counsel held a teleconference on December 13, 2010 to discuss the responses, after which

13

defense counsel drafted and sent a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel specifically setting forth its objections to

14

the plaintiffs’ responses. Counsel requested that plaintiffs supplement their individual responses prior

15

to close of business on January 12, 2011. See Exh. 1 to Mot. (#114). Plaintiffs’ counsel responded with

16

a letter dated January 13, 2011, in which he clarified many of the plaintiffs’ responses, but he did not

17

provide verified supplemental responses. Defense counsel demanded that plaintiffs serve verified

18

supplemental responses by February 2, 2011, but plaintiffs did not do so. On February 8, 2011, defense

19

counsel called plaintiffs’ counsel, but he was unavailable. Brent Jones filed the instant motion to

20

compel (#114) on February 25, 2011. Pursuant to the court’s September 2, 2010 Amended Scheduling

21

Order (#75), discovery closes on June 1, 2011.

22

The court believes that more progress could have, and should have, been made to resolve the

23

instant matter without court intervention. Correspondence between counsel prior to the filing of the

24

Motion to Compel (#114) indicates that they were approaching resolution on -- or at least narrowing --

25

many, if not most, of the issues now put to the court. Defense counsel’s January 26, 2011 letter

26

acknowledged that plaintiffs’ January 13, 2011 letter provided detailed explanations, including
2

1

additional documents plaintiffs believe are responsive to the interrogatories. Defense counsel stated that

2

such clarification should be included in a verified supplement pursuant to Rule 33; and specifically

3

requested that plaintiffs supplement Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 to include the

4

clarifications in the letter or defendant would file a motion to compel. Plaintiffs did not do so and this

5

motion followed, advancing arguments as though the prior discussion and January 13, 2011

6

clarifications never occurred.

7

supplemental responses consistent with the clarifications set forth in the January 13, 2011 letter, after

8

which the parties can meet and confer to come to an agreement as to which interrogatories, if any,

9

remain outstanding.

Therefore, the court will require plaintiffs to provide verified

10

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

11

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Brent Jones’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Discovery

12

Responses (#114) is granted to the extent that plaintiffs, not later than May 10, 2011, shall serve Brent

13

Jones with verified supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the motion (#114) is denied without
prejudice.
DATED this 4th day of May, 2011.

17
18
19

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3