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)

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