USA v. Zaccardi et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 33 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 12/28/2011. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:11cv135
v.
PAUL B. ZACCARDI, et al.,
Defendants.

Chief District Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner by Chief District Judge Ted
Stewart pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is the United States of
America’s (“Government”) motion to compel.2 The court has carefully reviewed the motion and
memorandum submitted by the Government. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the United States
District Court for the District of Utah Rules of Practice, the court elects to determine the motion
on the basis of the written memoranda and finds that oral argument would not be helpful or
necessary. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
The Government served discovery requests on Paul B. Zaccardi (“Defendant”) on August
16, 2011, pursuant to rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33 and 34. Responses to these requests were due on or before September 19, 2011. On

1

See docket no. 34.

2

See docket no. 33.

September 22, 2011, the Government emailed Defendant to inform him that no response had
been received and that his responses were overdue. Also on September 22, 2011, Defendant
filed a document entitled “Notice of Default and Conditional Acceptance Upon Proof of Claim
and Motion to Dismiss [with] Prejudice with Request for Finding of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.”3 In this pleading, Defendant stated that he “conditionally accepts [counsel’s] offer to
produce discovery in this case upon proof of claim that [the Government] has a verifiable claim
signed and sworn to under penalty of perjury.”4 Defendant, however, failed to respond to the
Government’s discovery requests.
On October 7, 2011, the Government filed the instant motion to compel.5 Defendant has
not opposed the Government’s motion, and the time for doing so has passed. See DUCivR 71(b)(4)(B) (“A memorandum opposing any motion that is not a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b), 12(c), and 56 must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.”).
While the court recognizes that Defendant is proceeding pro se, this “status does not relieve him
of the obligation to comply with procedural rules.” Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196,
1199 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Government’s motion,
and for good cause appearing, the court GRANTS said motion to compel. See DUCivR 7-1(d)
(“Failure to respond timely to a motion may result in the court’s granting the motion without
further notice.”). Defendant is ordered to respond in full to the Government’s requests for

3

Docket no. 31 at 1.

4

Id. at 2.

5

See docket no. 33.
2

production of documents and interrogatories on or before January 18, 2012. Failure to respond
by that date may result in sanctions against Defendant pursuant to rule 37 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

3