United States of America v. Reeves et al

Filing 59

ORDER Granting 48 United States of America's Motion to Compel. Defendant Reeves shall respond to the Governments Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on or before October 21, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 58 Defendants Reeves and Vaoga's Motion to Cancel Status Conference is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/3/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WAYNE REEVES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01916-JAD-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Compel (#48); Motion
To Cancel Status Conference (#58)

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff United States of America’s (“the

14

Government”) Motion to Compel (#48), filed on August 27, 2013. Defendant Wayne Reeves

15

(“Reeves”) filed an untimely Response (#52) on September 16, 2013. The Government filed a

16

Reply (#55) on September 26, 2013. The Government also filed a unilateral Status Report (#53)

17

regarding discovery on September 19, 2013. The Court conducted a telephonic status conference

18

on September 20, 2013, at which Defendant Reeves and Defendant Vaoga (“Defendants”) did not

19

appear. See Minutes of Proceedings, Doc. #56. Shortly before the status conference, Defendants

20

filed a Motion (#58) to cancel it.

21

The Complaint underlying this litigation seeks to enjoin Defendants from allegedly

22

promoting a tax-fraud scheme and from preparing tax returns for others. See Compl., Doc. #1. The

23

Government represents it served Reeves with Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

24

Documents (“RFPs”) on May 23, 2013. Reeves’ responses were due on June 25, 2013. See Fed. R.

25

Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). The Government states it agreed to a 14-day extension for the

26

Interrogatories, making Reeves’ responses due on July 9, 2013, and to a 30-day extension for the

27

RFPs, making those responses due July 25, 2013. The Government later agreed to further extend

28

the deadline to respond to the Interrogatories until August 1, 2013. On July 31, 2013, Reeves

1

communicated to the Government that he would mail his responses to the Interrogatories and RFPs

2

on August 1, 2013. See Motion, Doc. #48, Exh. 9. On August 12, 2013, the Government indicated

3

to Reeves that it still had not received his responses. See id., Exh. 10. The next day, Reeves

4

responded that he was continuing work on his discovery responses, and that he would mail them

5

“as soon as” he could. See id., Exh. 11. The Government represents that to date, it has received no

6

responses from Reeves.

7

Parties have an obligation to make a reasonable effort to locate all documents and

8

information necessary to fully respond to discovery. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. v.

9

Baxter Intern., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644, 657 (N.D. Calif. 2004). A party seeking discovery may move

10

for an order compelling an answer if a party fails to respond to properly propounded discovery. See

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Simply not responding to discovery requests is not an option. If a

12

responding party is unable to provide the requested information, he must state under oath that he is

13

unable to provide the information and must describe the efforts he expended attempting to obtain it.

14

See Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 612 (S.D. Calif. 2012). Similarly, if a responding party

15

objects to a particular discovery request, he must respond by stating the grounds for the objection

16

with specificity. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Furthermore, a discovery response “which

17

merely promises to produce” the requested information “at some unidentified time in the future,

18

without offering a specific time, place and manner” is treated as a failure to answer or respond.

19

Jayne H. Lee, Inc. v. Flagstaff Indus. Corp., 173 F.R.D. 651, 656 (D. Md. 1997).

20

Here, despite numerous extensions, Reeves has failed to provide any responses to the

21

Government’s timely discovery requests. Reeves first attempts to excuse his failure to respond by

22

rehashing his contention that the Government lacks standing to bring, and the Court lacks subject

23

matter jurisdiction over, this case. The District Judge previously rejected this argument, however,

24

in denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (#15, #21). See March 25, 2013 Order, Doc. #31 at

25

4:21-22 (“Nevertheless, the Court will address Plaintiff’s clear statutory standing to bring this

26

Action as well as this Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the same.”). Second, Reeves

27

represents his responses have been delayed by Defendant Vaoga’s health problems. The

28

Government agreed to extend the time for Reeves to respond. The Court finds that Defendant
2

1

Vaoga’s health concerns cannot excuse Reeves’ continued failure to respond over three months

2

after the original due date. Therefore, notwithstanding Reeves’ promises to respond “as soon as”

3

he can, the Court will compel Reeves to respond to the subject discovery requests.

4

Finally, shortly before the September 30, 2013 discovery status conference, Defendants

5

filed a Motion (#58) for “cancellation” of the conference. Therein, Defendants again dispute the

6

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case. For the reasons stated above as regards this

7

Court’s jurisdiction, and because Defendants present no other good reason to cancel the status

8

conference or otherwise withdraw the Minute Order (#54) setting the conference, the Court will

9

deny the Motion (#58). Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States of America’s Motion to Compel (#48)

11

is granted. Defendant Reeves shall respond to the Government’s Interrogatories and Requests for

12

Production of Documents on or before October 21, 2013. The Court cautions Defendant Reeves

13

that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Reeves and Vaoga’s Motion to Cancel
Status Conference (#58) is denied.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2013.

17
18
19

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3