Home Design Services v. Alan V Gren Enterprises et al
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM DECISION - granting 103 Motion to Compel; granting 103 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/31/13. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
HOME DESIGN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
v.
Case No. 2:12-cv-00398-TS-DBP
ANDREWS & ASSOCIATES
CUSTOM HOME DESIGN, et al.,
District Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Defendants.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket Nos. 37;
103.) Plaintiff is Home Design Services. Defendants relevant here are the Andrews Defendants:
(1) Andrews & Associates Custom Home Design; and (2) Larry F. Andrews. On August 21,
2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery from the Andrews Defendants. (Dkt. No.
103.) Plaintiff also requests the reasonable expenses it incurred by filing the motion. (Id.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
II.
STATEMENT OF LAW FOR MOTION TO COMPEL
If one party fails to provide discovery, or provides incomplete discovery, the party requesting
the discovery may move for an order compelling it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), (a)(3)(B), (a)(4). If
the court grants the motion to compel, the court “must . . . require the party . . . whose conduct
Page 1 of 3
necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the
motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
III.
ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff served the Andrews Defendants interrogatories, requests for
document production (RFPs), and requests for formal written responses to the RFPs. (Dkt. Nos.
103-4; 103-5.) The Andrews Defendants failed to timely respond within thirty days of being
served with these discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A).
Between May 2013 and June 2013, Plaintiff, the Andrews Defendants, and the Andrews
Defendants’ prior counsel 1 exchanged several emails about the overdue discovery. (Dkt. Nos.
103-1; 103-2.) Consequently, on July 8, 2013, Defendant Andrews & Associates Custom Home
Design produced some requested documents. (Dkt. No. 103-3.)
Between July 5, 2013 and July 8, 2013, Plaintiff wrote to the Andrews Defendants’ prior
counsel to request the remaining discovery. (Id.) However, the Andrews Defendants failed to
provide it. As a result, on August 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel.
Plaintiff moves to compel the Andrews Defendants to serve their interrogatory answers and
their formal written responses to the RFPs. (Dkt. No. 103 at 6.) Plaintiff also moves to compel
Defendant Larry F. Andrews to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s RFPs. (Id.)
1
On August 23, 2012, the Andrews Defendants’ counsel, Kristen K. Woods, withdrew her
representation. (Dkt. No. 29.) On February 12, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered a default
certificate against the Andrews Defendants because they failed to file a notice of appearance.
(Dkt. No. 52.)
Page 2 of 3
Additionally, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Andrews & Associates Custom Home Design
to produce outstanding documents responsive to RFP Nos. 3-11, and 18. 2
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has unsuccessfully sought discovery responses from the Andrews Defendants for
over a year. The Andrews Defendants never responded to Plaintiff’s motion to compel to justify
or excuse their failure to provide discovery. Under such circumstances, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 103.) See DUCivR 7-1(d) (“Failure to respond timely to a motion
may result in the court’s granting the motion without further notice.”).
Within thirty (30) days of being served with a copy of this decision, the Andrews
Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, document productions requests, and
requests for formal written responses to the document production requests.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for the reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees, it incurred by filing the motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 103.)
Plaintiff must submit a memorandum of costs to the Court by November 14, 2013. In this
memorandum, Plaintiff must specify the amount it seeks from the Andrews Defendants. By
November 28, 2013, the Andrews Defendants may respond to Plaintiff’s memorandum. After
receiving these submissions, the Court will determine an appropriate dollar amount, and enter an
order against the Andrews Defendants.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2013.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Plaintiff describes the specific documents it seeks for RFP Nos. 3-11, and 18 in its motion to
compel. (See Dkt. No. 103 at 6-7.) For brevity’s sake, the Court will not repeat the descriptions
here.
Page 3 of 3
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?