Harry v. Arizona, State of ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lewis A Harry, Jr., No. CV-19-02234-PHX-DLR (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 17 James F. Metcalf (Doc. 67) regarding Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 62). The 18 R&R recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for failing to comply with a 19 Court Order compelling discovery and dismissing the case with prejudice as a sanction. 20 The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days from the date of 21 service of a copy of the R&R to file specific written objections with the Court. (Doc. 67 22 at 13-14.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R on February 16, 2021 (Doc. 73), and 23 Defendants filed their response on March 17, 2021 (Doc. 74). The Court will adopt the 24 R&R and overrule Plaintiff’s objection for the following reasons. 25 On August 19, 2020, Judge Metcalf granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel and 26 directed Plaintiff to serve signed responses to Defendants’ pending Interrogatories and 27 Requests for Production. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff served Supplemental Discovery Responses 28 (Doc. 60), but Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 62), arguing that Plaintiff’s 1 supplemental discovery responses did not comply with the Order compelling discovery. 2 The supplemental discovery responses consisted of 3 pages of unsworn text and 22 pages 3 of documentation. (Doc. 60.) The R&R agreed with Defendants. Although the Court’s 4 ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 52) gave Plaintiff directions on how to 5 prepare adequate discovery responses, he failed to follow those directions. Particularly, 6 the supplemental discovery responses were largely a recitation of Plaintiff’s claims, did not 7 identify the specific facts requested, made no reference to any specific interrogatories, and 8 were not verified. And, turning to Plaintiff’s excuses for his inadequate responses, the 9 R&R found them unpersuasive. For example, Plaintiff’s explanation that he could not 10 adequately respond because he lacked access to his stored medical records was inconsistent 11 with his admission that he placed them in storage after the discovery responses were due 12 and made no showing that he attempted to access the records since. (Doc. 67 at 5.) 13 The R&R conducted the proper sanctions analysis, noting, “[f]irst, any sanction 14 must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ 15 which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.” (Doc. 67 at 7 (quoting Ins. Corp. of 16 Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982))). It reviewed the 17 claims at issue and concluded that the circumstances are extreme such that, having 18 considered the five severe sanction factors, the imposition of severe sanctions is justified. 19 Moreover, the R&R explained that there is no practical way to craft an order limited to 20 specific findings or evidentiary restrictions and noted that the order compelling discovery 21 “cautioned that a failure to fully comply with this Order may result in a grant of sanctions 22 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b).” Therefore, the R&R decided that the 23 only effective solution is dismissal. (Doc. 67 at 12.) 24 Instead of addressing the R&R’s findings or justifying the problems with his 25 discovery responses, Plaintiff complains in his objection about a variety of unsatisfactory 26 discovery responses he received from Defendants. The sufficiency of Defendants’ 27 discovery responses is irrelevant to the Court’s consideration of the R&R, which addresses 28 only Plaintiff’s discovery responses. In addition, Plaintiff fails to explain why he neglected || to follow the Court’s discovery roadmap, why he did not access his storage records in || completing his discovery responses, or why accessing such records was required in the first || place. 4 The Court has considered Plaintiff's objection and reviewed the R&R de novo. See 5|| Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge correctly found that □□ Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery responses were inadequate, were in violation of the order granting Defendants’ Motion to Compel, and “Plaintiff has left Defendants exactly 8 || where they were before the Court’s Order compelling responses.” (Doc. 67 at 6.) Finally, 9|| the Magistrate Judge correctly found that there is no practical way to craft an order limited 10 || to specific factual findings or evidentiary restrictions. 11 Therefore, the Court accepts the R&R’s recommended disposition within the 12 || meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district 13} court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations || made by the magistrate”). Accordingly, 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 67) is ACCEPTED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 62) is GRANTED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file their application for 19 || reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees within fourteen days of this order. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon resolution of Defendants’ application for || reasonable expenses, or the expiration of time for such application without one being filed, □□ Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc.1) and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 23 Dated this 17th day of May, 2021. 24 - 25 J _—S □□ a 26 Do . Rayes 37 United States District Judge 28 'Prior to the filing of the R&R, Plaintiff did not seek assistance in obtaining the allegedly necessary records he claims Defendants put in storage. -3-