Swasey et al v. West Valley City et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 96 Motion for Protective Order; denying 99 Motion for Protective Order; denying 100 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 2/3/16 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
DANIELLE SWASEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

v.
Case No. 2:13-cv-768 DN
WEST VALLEY CITY, et al.,
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Before the court are three closely related motions. Defendants Sean McCarthy, Thayle
“Buzz” Nielsen, and John Coyle move the court for entry of a Protective Order protecting
Defendants from the alleged untimely written discovery requests served upon them by the
Plaintiffs. 1 Defendant Kevin Salmon joins in the motion. 2 And Defendant Shaun Cowley also
joins in the motion.3 As set forth below the court DENIES the motions.
This dispute centers on the interpretation of a stipulation entered into by the parties to
extend discovery. On December 1, 2015 the parties entered into a stipulation “extending the
discovery and related deadlines because, despite due diligence, more time is required to complete
discovery.” 4 The parties requested a new fact discovery cutoff of January 31, 2016. 5 The court
granted the stipulation. 6

1

Docket no. 96.

2

Docket no. 99.

3

Docket no. 100.

4

Stipulation docket no. 87.

5

See id.

6

Order dated December 2, 2015, docket no. 89.

On December 29, 2015, Plaintiffs served a set of written discovery requests on
Defendants, “including a set of Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents,
and Interrogatories to each Defendant.” 7 The parties exchanged communications about these
discovery requests but could not come to an agreement regarding their timeliness. Defendants
assert that the deadline for serving written discovery expired on November 2, 2015 and the
December 1, 2015 stipulation did not move that deadline. They further assert that Local Rule 71(a)(2)(A) was not complied with by the stipulation so the written discovery deadline cannot be
the subject of the stipulation.
In contrast, Plaintiffs point to the “related deadlines” language in the stipulation arguing
that the deadline for written discovery was extended. Plaintiffs also argue that if the stipulation
is viewed according to Defendants’ interpretation it would only benefit Defendants. In addition,
Defendants drafted the stipulation so it should be construed against them for failing to narrowly
tailor what was intended. Finally, Defendants Salmon and Cowley waived their arguments since
they already submitted discovery responses prior to filing their motions. 8
Local Rule 7-1(a)(2)(A) pertains to the filing of a motion to extend time. It provides:
Exceptions to Requirement That a Motion Contain Facts and Legal Authority.
Although all motions must state grounds for the request and cite applicable rules,
statutes, case law, or other authority justifying the relief sought, no recitation of
facts and legal authorities beyond the initial statement of the precise relief sought
and grounds for the motion shall be required for the following types of motions:
(A) to extend time for the performance of an act, whether required or permitted,
provided the motion is made prior to expiration of the time originally prescribed
or previously extended by the court. 9

7

Mtn for protective order p. 2, docket no. 96.

8

Op. p. 3, docket no. 102.

9

DUCivR 7-1(a)(2)(A) (2015).

The court agrees with Defendants that Local Rule 7-1(a)(2)(A) was not explicitly
followed since the stipulation did not include a recitation of the facts for the written discovery
deadline that had expired. The court, however, is persuaded that other factors outweigh this lack
of compliance with Rule 7-1(a)(2)(A). First, Defendants drafted the stipulation and as such the
court finds it appropriate to construe any ambiguities in favor of Plaintiffs. Second, it appears
based upon Plaintiffs’ representations that some Defendants have already provided responsive
discovery to the discovery requests. These both weigh in favor of denying the motions .
Accordingly, the court DENIES the respective motions for protective order. Defendants
are HEREBY ORDERED to provide discovery responses within thirty (30) days from the date
of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants motions for protective order are DENIED.

DATED this 3 February 2016.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge