Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Balle et al
Filing
294
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 193 Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce re 184 Minute Order. Defendant must comply with Order 184 by the close of discovery on 9/16/2013. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/20/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
***
10
16
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
2:10-cv-02205-APG-NJK
)
vs.
)
)
PETER MARIO BALLE, D.C., et al.,
)
ORDER
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Court Order (Docket #184) Against
17
Defendant Peter Mario Balle and For Sanctions (#193). The Court has considered Plaintiffs’
18
Motion (#193), Defendant Peter Mario Balle’s Response (#196), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (#198)
19
The Court finds this motion appropriately resolved without oral argument. Local Rule 78-2.
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed three motions to compel. See Docket Nos. 123, 124,
22
125. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Docket No. 124, specifically sought discovery from
23
Defendant Peter Mario Balle (“PMB”). See Docket No. 124. The docket entry for each of
24
Plaintiffs’ motions stated that responses were due by July 28, 2012. Id. However, on July 12,
25
2012, Magistrate Judge Robert Johnston stayed discovery for 60 days. Docket No. 130.
26
Thereafter, on September 10, 2012, in accordance with Judge Johnston’s order, the stay was
27
lifted. Id. On December 31, 2013, Judge Johnson entered a minute order which stated,
28
“Responses to Plaintiff's [sic] Motions to Compel 123 , 124 , & 125 must be filed by January 16,
1
2013. . .” No. 174. This case was reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge on January 7,
2
2013, for all further proceedings. Docket No. 175.
3
By January 16, 2013, PMB had failed to file responses to Plaintiffs’ motions. On January
4
22, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions pursuant to LR 7-2(d) because no Response had
5
been filed (Order 184). Docket No. 184. Defendant Accident Injury Medical filed a Motion for
6
Reconsideration of Order 184 on February 5, 2013. Docket No. 189. PMB filed a joinder to that
7
motion on February 19, 2013. Docket No. 191.
8
On February 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the present motion seeking a Court order to enforce
9
Order 184. Docket No. 193. Plaintiffs also sought sanctions for having to bring its prior motions
10
to compel and for Defendant’s failure to comply with Order 184. Id. On March 11, 2013, PMB
11
responded that he disagreed with Order 184 and had accordingly filed a joinder to the Motion for
12
Reconsideration. Docket No. 196. On August 15, 2013, District Judge Andrew Gordon affirmed
13
Order 184 and denied Defendants’ request for reconsideration. Docket No. 289.
14
15
DISCUSSION
I.
16
17
Sanctions Relating to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
On January 22, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37,
(A) If the Motion Is Granted (or Disclosure or Discovery Is Provided After Filing). If the
motion is granted—or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the
motion was filed—the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the
party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising
that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the
motion, including attorney's fees. But the court must not order this payment if:
18
19
20
21
22
(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action;
23
(ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified;
or
24
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
25
26
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).
27
...
28
...
-2-
1
2
Here, Plaintiffs made a good faith effort to meet and confer; however, no meet and confer
ever actually occurred. See Docket No. 193, at 3.
3
As for whether the nondisclosure was substantially justified, PMB indicates that he did
4
not respond to the discovery requests because they related to items concerning his personal
5
financial matters, were irrelevant, and did not have any relationship to the allegations made
6
against him for his chiropractic practice or the medical clinic. Docket No. 196, at 4. Additionally,
7
PMB argues, the majority of the requests were more appropriate coming from Defendant
8
Accident Injury Medical Center. Id. PMB’s objections, however, are not fully developed as he
9
never participated in a meet and confer and did not file a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to
10
compel. Nevertheless, the Court has looked at PMB’s arguments generally and finds that PMB’s
11
objections were incorrect, but substantially justified.1 Accordingly, the Court will not grant
12
sanctions related to the motion to compel.
13
II.
14
Motion to Enforce
On August 15, 2013, District Judge Andrew Gordon affirmed Order 184 and denied
15
Defendant’s request for reconsideration. Docket No. 289. Accordingly, Defendant must comply
16
with Order 184 by the close of discovery, September 16, 2013.
17
III.
18
Motion to Enforce Sanctions
Plaintiffs have also requested sanctions for Defendant’s non-compliance with Order 184
19
in the amount of costs and fees associated with bringing the instant motion. Having reviewed the
20
matter, the Court denies this request. Defendant timely requested reconsideration of Order 184
21
and, therefore, was awaiting further instruction from the Court before complying. Accordingly,
22
Defendant’s failure to comply with Order 184 prior to District Judge Gordon’s August 15, 2013,
23
Order, was justified.
24
...
25
...
26
...
27
1
28
The Court is not required to make a party’s arguments for it. See Williams v. Eastside
Lumberyard & Supply Co., 190 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1114 (S.D.Ill.2001)
-3-
1
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Court Order (Docket
4
#184) Against Defendant Peter Mario Balle and For Sanctions (#193) is GRANTED in part and
5
DENIED in part.
6
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must comply with Order 184 by the close of
discovery, September 16, 2013.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.
9
DATED this 20th
day of August, 2013.
10
11
12
13
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?