Grano v. City of Bloomfield, et al.

Filing 70

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa granting in part and denying in part Motions to Compel and directing Layfield and Barrett to show cause why it and/or its members should not have to pay the discovery sanctions award as opposed to Plaintiff. (KK)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MARK GRANO, individually and as
Personal Representative of the
Wrongful Death Estate of John
Rogers, deceased; BILLIE ROGERS;
JOHN ROGERS, JR.; and DANA
DAVILA, Plaintiffs,
vs.

No. 1:16-cv-00937 JCH/KK

CITY OF BLOOMFIELD; ANDREW
DARBY; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
FOR SANCTIONS/MOTIONS TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant City of Bloomfield’s Opposed
Motion to Compel or for Sanctions Against Estate of John Rogers (Doc. No. 40), Defendant
Andrew Darby’s Opposed Motion to Compel or for Sanctions Against Estate of John Rogers
(Doc. No. 41), and Defendant City of Bloomfield’s Opposed Motion to Compel or for Sanctions
Against Individual Plaintiffs (Doc. No. 42). The Court having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ responses
(Doc. Nos. 49, 50 and 51) to the foregoing motions, having reviewed the Defendants’ Replies
(Doc. Nos. 54, 55 and 56) in support of the motions, having heard the arguments of counsel on
June 30, 2017 (as reflected in the Clerk’s Minutes, Doc. No. 63 (filed June 30, 2017)), and being
fully advised in the premises, FINDS that the Motions are well-taken in part and are hereby
GRANTED in part as set forth below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all Plaintiffs in this matter shall be required to
review and supplement their respective answers/responses to the following discovery requests by
July 31, 2017:
•

Defendant City of Bloomfield’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Marc Grano as

Personal Representative of the Estate of John Rogers;
•

Defendant City of Bloomfield’s First Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiff/Personal
Representative Marc Grano;

•

Defendant City of Bloomfield’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff/Personal
Representative Marc Grano;

•

Defendant City of Bloomfield’s First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 2 to 5 to
Plaintiff Billie Rogers;

•

Defendant City of Bloomfield’s First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 2 to 4 to
Plaintiff Dana Davila;

•

Defendant Andrew Darby’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff/Personal
Representative Marc Grano;

•

Defendant Andrew Darby’s First Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiff/Personal
Representative Marc Grano; and

•

Defendant Andrew Darby’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff/Personal
Representative Marc Grano.

With respect to the Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admissions, the Court reminds
Plaintiff/Personal Representative Grano that denials based on lack of knowledge by the personal
representative are insufficient and improper, and that the personal representative has an
obligation to reasonably investigate the facts in good faith. The Plaintiff/Personal
Representative’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admissions shall specifically admit or
deny the matters or set forth in detail the reasons why the personal representative cannot
truthfully admit or deny the matters. The personal representative cannot give lack of information
or personal knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the personal representative
demonstrates that he has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily
obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall be required to supplement their initial
2

disclosures with their damages computation in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii)
by July 31, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Preliminary Statement and General Objections”
preceding each and every one of Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are hereby STRICKEN and
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all objections to the Defendant City of Bloomfield’s
contention interrogatories lodged by Plaintiff/Personal Representative Marc Grano are hereby
OVERRULED, except that any attorney-privilege claims made in response to the Defendants’
discovery requests are not stricken at this time but should be retracted unless a privilege log is
served with the Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery responses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A) and (C),
Defendants are awarded all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with 1) attempting to
resolve the discovery disputes underlying their Motions for Sanctions, 2) the briefing and filing
of the Motions and Replies in support thereof, and 3) preparing for and attending the June 30,
2017 hearing on this matter. Defendants are instructed to submit affidavits regarding attorney’s
fees and costs incurred in connection with the foregoing within ten days of the entry of this
Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT within twelve days of the entry of this Order,
counsel for Plaintiff, Gregory Peacock, Jonathan Teller, Philip Layfield, Slav Kasreliovich and
Layfield & Barrett, APC, show cause in writing why the Rule 37 sanctions awarded herein
should not be imposed against Layfield & Barrett, APC and/or its members as opposed to
Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (authorizing the imposition of sanctions for discovery

3

violations against the opposing party, its attorney, or both). This show cause order is not an
invitation to revisit the Court’s award of sanctions for the discovery violations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ requests for dismissal of this case as a
sanction and for the Court to deem admitted Plaintiffs’ untimely and/or otherwise improper
responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admissions are hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any continued discovery abuses by the Plaintiffs in
this matter may result in the dismissal of this action as a sanction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
United States Magistrate Judge

4