Rosenthal v. Morris

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: 1) Rosenthal's 21 motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. 2) Morris shall provide full responses to the Discovery Requests within thirty (30) days after the date of this order. 3) Rosenthal's request for an award of reasonable expenses is DENIED. 4) Rosenthal's 23 motion to expedite his motion to compel is MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 1/23/19. (dla)

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

JEFFREY ROSENTHAL,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01196-RJS-PMW
v.
MATTHEW MORRIS,
Defendant.

Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul
M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Plaintiff Jeffrey
Rosenthal’s (“Rosenthal”) (1) motion to compel production of documents 2 and (2) motion to
expedite his motion to compel. 3 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda
submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not
necessary and will decide the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR
7-1(f).
In his motion to compel, Rosenthal requests a court order requiring Defendant Matthew
Morris (“Morris”) to fully respond to Rosenthal’s interrogatories no. 19 and 20 and document

1

See docket no. 12.

2

See docket no. 21.

3

See docket no. 23.

requests no. 5 and 6 (collectively, “Discovery Requests”). The Discovery Requests seek
information about Morris’ financial status. Rosenthal argues that discovery of such information
is proper when punitive damages are claimed, as in this case.
In response, Morris relies upon Utah Code section 78B-8-201(2)(a) to argue that
Rosenthal is not entitled to the requested discovery concerning Morris’ financial status. Section
78B-8-201(2)(a) provides:
Discovery concerning a party’s wealth or financial condition may
only be allowed after the party seeking punitive damages has
established a prima facie case on the record that an award of
punitive damages is reasonably likely against the party about
whom discovery is sought and, if disputed, the court is satisfied
that the discovery is not sought for the purpose of harassment.
Utah Code § 78B-8-201(2)(a).
Morris’ argument has been previously considered by this court and rejected. See Free
Conference Call Holdings, Inc. v. Powerhouse Commc’ns, LLC, No. 2:07-CV-893-CW, 2009 WL
2916749, at *2 (D. Utah Sept. 8, 2009) (“[T]he requirement that claimant establish a prima facie
case applies to the admissibility of evidence about financial status, not its discoverability. More
importantly, discovery is a procedural matter that is governed in federal court by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, state discovery practices are usually irrelevant.”) (quotations,
citations, and footnotes omitted); see also E.E.O.C. v. Holmes & Holmes Indus., Inc., No.
2:10-CV-955-DAK-PMW, 2011 WL 5118306, at *3 (D. Utah Oct. 27, 2011) (same). The court
concludes that the reasoning of those cases applies here. Accordingly, Morris’ argument is
without merit, and Rosenthal’s motion to compel is granted. Morris shall provide full responses
to the Discovery Requests within thirty (30) days after the date of this order.

2

As part of his motion to compel, Rosenthal requests an award of reasonable expenses
incurred in connection with his motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Based upon the
arguments presented, the court concludes that Morris’ position was substantially justified. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii). Furthermore, the court concludes that an award of reasonable
expenses is not warranted under the circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).
Therefore, Rosenthal’s request for an award of reasonable expenses is denied.
In light of the foregoing rulings, Rosenthal’s motion to expedite his motion to compel has
been rendered moot.
In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Rosenthal’s motion to compel production of documents 4 is GRANTED.

2.

Morris shall provide full responses to the Discovery Requests within thirty (30)
days after the date of this order.

3.

Rosenthal’s request for an award of reasonable expenses is DENIED.

4.

Rosenthal’s motion to expedite his motion to compel 5 is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
4

See docket no. 21.

5

See docket no. 23.
3