Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04069/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04069-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Terry Dishon, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Connie R Gorham, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-04069-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 Terry Dishon and Luci Dishon (collectively “the Dishons”) allege Defendants 

Gary Haak (“Haak”) and Connie Gorham (“Mrs. Gorham,” and collectively with Haak 

“Defendants”) began demanding payment from the Dishons in violation of a prior 

agreement between the parties. The parties were to complete fact discovery by August 

31, 2018. (Doc. 67). Thus, the Dishons served Defendants with requests for admission, 

requests for production, and interrogatories on June 28, 2018. To date, Defendants have 

not responded. In addition, the Dishons noticed Mr. Haak’s deposition for August 22, 

2018, and Mrs. Gorham’s for August 23, 2018. (Doc. 89-2). According to the Dishons’ 

counsel, neither Mr. Haak nor Mrs. Gorham contacted them after receiving these 

deposition notices. Then, despite that the Dishons’ counsel emailed both Mrs. Gorham 

and Mr. Haak to remind them of their obligation to appear for their depositions, neither 

appeared. (Id.). 

 The Dishons have now filed a discovery dispute requesting this Court (1) impose 

monetary sanctions for Defendants’ failure to appear at their depositions, (2) order 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 90 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants to travel to Texas, where the Dishons’ counsel is located, for a rescheduled 

deposition, and (3) compel Defendants to serve responses to all outstanding requests for 

production and interrogatories. 

 The discovery dispute, however, did not include a summary of Defendants’ 

position. The Dishons’ counsel emailed Defendants twice seeking Defendants input on 

the discovery dispute: once at 11:15 A.M. on Wednesday, September 12, and a second 

time at 12:45 P.M. on Thursday, September 13. (Doc. 89-1). After Defendants did not 

respond, the Dishons filed the dispute at 5:07 P.M. on Friday, September 13, 2018. (Doc. 

89). 

 The Court’s scheduling order states that, “[s]hould a discovery dispute arise, 

counsel shall consult and make a sincere effort to resolve the matter(s).” (Doc. 67). It 

also states that, if the parties cannot resolve the matter, the parties may file a “joint 

statement of the issue.” (Id.). Here, although the Defendants’ lack of response is 

concerning, the Dishons only gave Defendants two days to respond before filing thier 

discovery dispute. The Court understands that Defendants are appearing pro se, and that 

pro se litigants should be afforded leniency. Moreover, the Dishons should have at least 

permitted Defendants through the weekend to craft their response, particularly 

considering the discovery dispute was filed on Friday after 5:00 P.M., meaning the 

Dishons expected it would not be reviewed by this Court until the following Monday at 

the earliest. Finally, to the extent the Dishons’ haste in filing this discovery dispute 

stemmed from a desire to file it well-within the now-revised September 28, 2018 

discovery deadline, the Dishons may seek an extension of that deadline from the Court. 

...... 

...... 

...... 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Dishons’ requests in the discovery dispute, (Doc. 89), are 

DENIED. The Dishons shall “make a sincere effort to resolve the matter” with 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 90 Filed 09/19/18 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. Only after doing so may they resubmit their disputes to this Court. 

 Dated this 19th day of September, 2018. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 90 Filed 09/19/18 Page 3 of 3