Dominguez-Hernandez et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 91

ORDER that 84 Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part. The request for attorneys' fees is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 J.D.H., et al., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:13-cv-01300-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 84) 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to compel a supplemental response from 17 Plaintiff Maria Hernandez with respect to Interrogatory No. 21. Docket No. 84. Ms. Hernandez filed 18 a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 89-90. At issue is a contention 19 interrogatory requiring Ms. Hernandez to identify the duties owed to her from Defendants. Ms. 20 Hernandez responded by indicating “I don’t know specific duties,” and then referring to various duties. 21 Ms. Hernandez argues that response was the best she could provide given deficiencies in the wording 22 of the interrogatory. Defendants respond that the answer is unclear and appears to include duties owed 23 to Ms. Hernandez’s daughter, rather than to Ms. Hernandez herself. Defendants also argue that they are 24 entitled to know the duties underlying Ms. Hernandez’s claims. 25 The Court finds neither party’s position fully persuasive. In the interest of moving this case 26 forward, the Court will modify the interrogatory as follows: “Identify each obligation and/or duty that 27 you contend the LVMPD owed to you that gives rise to your claims in this case.” Ms. Hernandez shall 28 1 provide a response to that interrogatory as modified within 7 days of this order. Her response shall 2 clearly identify each duty she contends was breached by LVMPD that gives rise to her claims. 3 The purpose of a contention interrogatory is to clarify a party’s contentions underlying her claims 4 (or defenses). If Defendants do not believe the response to the above modified interrogatory suffices 5 to establish a claim, the proper method for raising that challenge is through a motion for summary 6 judgment or some other motion addressed to the merits of the claims. A motion to compel a 7 supplemental or different answer is not the proper vehicle to address arguments that any duties identified 8 by Ms. Hernandez were not actually owed to her. 9 10 Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part. The request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: October 15, 2015 13 14 ______________________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?