Gustin v. Plano Molding Company et al
Filing
184
ORDER granting ECF No. #159 Motion to Compel. Please see attached for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
COLE GUSTIN, by and through DOROTHY
KYLE and JOSEPH KYLE, Guardians Ad Litem,
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
PLANO MOLDING COMPANY, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:14-cv-00700-RCJ-CWH
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Third-Party Plaintiff Doskocil Manufacturing Company’s
14
(“Doskocil”) Motion to Compel Supplementary Discovery Responses from Third-Party Defendant
15
Carmen Gustin (ECF No. 159), filed on April 28, 2016. Third-Party Defendant Carmen Gustin did
16
not file a response, which was due May 16, 2016.
17
In its motion, Doskocil requests that Ms. Gustin supplement her response to Interrogatory 2
18
of Doskocil’s First Set of Interrogatories, which requested the address and telephone number of Ms.
19
Gustin’s son, Spenser Chaney Gustin. (Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 159) at 2.) Although Ms. Gustin
20
responded that she did not know Spenser’s address or telephone number, Doskocil represents that it
21
believes Ms. Gustin provided that information to Dr. Loong, Plaintiff Cole Gustin’s
22
neuropsychological expert, because Dr. Loong testified at his deposition that he spoke to Spenser on
23
the telephone on March 27, 2016. (Id. at 3.) In its motion, Doskocil describes the unsuccessful
24
attempts that it made to meet and confer with Ms. Gustin’s former attorney regarding this dispute.
25
(Id.) Doskocil requests that the Court compel Ms. Gustin to supplement her answer to Interrogatory
26
2 with any information she has about Spenser’s address, location, or contact information. (Id. at 5.)
27
It further requests that the Court order Ms. Gustin to pay the costs and fees that Doskocil incurred in
28
bringing this motion. (Id. at 4, 6.)
1
Given that Ms. Gustin did respond to the motion, the Court will grant the motion as
2
unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d) (stating that the “failure of an opposing party to file points and
3
authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”). For
4
the reasons stated in the motion, the Court will order Ms. Gustin to supplement her response to
5
Interrogatory 2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) (requiring a party who has responded to an
6
interrogatory to supplement or correct its response if the party learns that the response is incomplete
7
or incorrect, or as ordered by the court). Additionally, the Court will order Ms. Gustin to pay the
8
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Doskocil in having to bring the motion. See Fed. R.
9
Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (stating that if a motion to compel is granted, the court must require the party
10
whose conduct necessitated the motion “to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making
11
the motion, including attorney’s fees.”).
12
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Third-Party Plaintiff Doskocil Manufacturing
13
Company’s (“Doskocil”) Motion to Compel Supplementary Discovery Responses from Third-Party
14
Defendant Carmen Gustin (ECF No. 159) is GRANTED.
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by July 11, 2016, Third-Party Defendant Carmen Gustin
16
must supplement her response to Doskocil’s Interrogatory 2 with any information she has about
17
Spenser Gustin’s address, location, or contact information.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by July 11, 2016, Third-Party Plaintiff Doskocil
19
Manufacturing Company and Third-Party Defendant Carmen Gustin must meet and confer regarding
20
the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs that Ms. Gustin will pay to Doskocil to
21
compensate Doskocil for having to bring this motion.
22
DATED: June 23, 2016
23
24
25
______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?