Dinkins v. Schinzel
ORDER Denying Defendant's 89 Motion for Stay of Magistrate Judge's Order and Denying Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:17-cv-01089-JAD-GWF
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Magistrate Judge’s Order
(ECF No. 89), filed on February 2, 2018. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this
motion and the time for response has now expired. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 90), filed on February 2, 2018. Defendant filed her Response (ECF No. 93)
on February 8, 2018 and Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 95) on February 14, 2018.
Plaintiff served requests for production regarding Defendant’s tax returns and filed his
motion to compel regarding her deficient responses. On January 18, 2018, the Court granted, in
part, Defendant’s motion to compel and instructed Defendant to produce her 2015 and 2016 tax
returns. See ECF No. 84. On January 29, 2018, Defendant filed her objection (ECF No. 86) to
the Court’s Order. Defendant requests a stay of the Court’s Order instructing her to produce her
tax returns until the Plaintiff’s punitive damage claim survives a dispositive motion. Defendant
argues that Plaintiff has a propensity to publish personal information on the internet and seeks a
stay of the Court’s Order to prevent Plaintiff from posting her tax returns on the internet. Plaintiff
requests sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s
Order. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failure to produce her tax returns has delayed the case and
requests an order striking Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims and enter default judgment in
favor of Plaintiff.
The Court denies Defendant’s request for a stay of the Court’s Order pending a ruling on
dispositive motions. The Court will not preclude discovery of relevant financial information and
a prima facie dispositive motion determination is not warranted. The Court will, however, enter a
protective order regarding Defendant’s tax returns and other relevant financial information.
Defendant may redact personal identifying information such as EINs, social security numbers,
dates of birth, and names of dependents. Plaintiff shall limit his use of Defendant’s produced
financial information solely for purposes of this case. Plaintiff shall not publish Defendant’s
financial information directly or indirectly on the internet or produce her financial information to
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the court with a wide range of
sanctions for a party’s failure to adequately engage in discovery. “Discovery sanctions serve the
objectives of discovery by correcting for the adverse effects of discovery violations and deterring
future discovery violations from occurring.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 425 (1988). Plaintiff
did not suffer prejudice that would warrant an award of sanctions against Defendant. The Court,
therefore, denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Magistrate Judge’s Order
(ECF No. 89) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 90) is
Dated this 7th day of March, 2018.
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?