Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01162/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

John P. Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dr. Thomas Bell, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1162-PHX-PGR (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery in which

Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant Bell to properly respond to his discovery

requests. (Doc.41) Defendant Bell has filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed a Reply. (Docs.

44, 48)

In the motion, Plaintiff contends he sent a letter to Defendant’s counsel on November

19, 2013, stating the discovery responses were late, incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff contends

that despite the letter to counsel, no attempt to correct the responses has been made. Plaintiff,

however, fails to identify in the motion which discovery responses were deficient and how they

were deficient.

Defendant asserts in the response that his counsel responded to Plaintiff’s letter with

a letter dated November 26, 2013. (Doc. 44, Exh. 7) Counsel wrote to Plaintiff that “[i]f there

are particular responses to which you take issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will

certainly work with you to resolve any dispute, in good faith.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims in his reply

he did not receive counsel’s letter. (Doc. 48 at 3)

Case 2:12-cv-01162-PGR-MEA Document 50 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Defendant contends, inter alia, the motion to compel should be denied because

Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) and Rule 7.2(j) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”). Rule

37(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that a motion to compel “must include a certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to

make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” The Local Rules

reiterate this certification requirement and further provide that “[a]ny discovery motion brought

before the Court without prior personal consultation with the other party and a sincere effort to

resolve the matter, may result in sanctions.” LRCiv 7.2(j).

Defendant also argues Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with LRCiv 37.1. That rule

provides that a motion to compel discovery shall “set forth, separately from a memorandum of

law, the following in separate, distinct, numbered paragraphs:

(1) the question propounded, the interrogatory submitted, the designation 

requested or the inspection requested;

(2) the answer, designation or response received; and

(3) the reason(s) why said answer, designation, or response is deficient.” 

LRCiv 37.1(a). Civil Local Rule 37.1(a) applies to all pro se litigants, including prisoners. See

Aros v. Robinson, 2011 WL 643386, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2011) (“Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with [LRCiv 37.1(a)] provides an independent sufficient basis to deny his Motion to

Compel. ”). The requirements of this Local Rule do not apply “where there has been a complete

and total failure to respond to a discovery request.” LRCiv 37.1(b).

 A district court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have “the force of law.”

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010) (citation omitted). They “are binding upon

the parties and upon the court, and a departure from local rules that affects substantial rights

requires reversal.” Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349,

1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A departure is justified only if the

effect is so slight and unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook it.” Id. (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). “Anyone appearing before the court is bound by these Local

Case 2:12-cv-01162-PGR-MEA Document 50 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Rules[,] including “[p]arties not represented by an attorney unless the context requires

otherwise.” LRCiv 83.3(c)(1). 

Regarding his obligation to confer in good faith, Plaintiff fails to attach to his motion

a copy of the November 19, 2013 letter to Defendant Bell’s counsel. Based on counsel’s

November 26, 2013 letter in response, however, it appears Plaintiff failed to identify particular

responses to his discovery requests that he was disputing. Additionally, it appears that Plaintiff,

who claims he never received the November 26, 2013 letter, made no further attempts to resolve

the discovery issues before filing the motion to compel. For these reasons, the Court finds

Plaintiff has failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and LRCiv 7.2(j).

In addition, Plaintiff’s motion to compel fails to comply with LRCiv 37.1(a).

Plaintiff’s motion does not set forth, separately from a memorandum of law, in separate,

distinct, numbered paragraphs, the documents requested, the response received and the reasons

why the response is deficient. Although Plaintiff attached to his reply a copy of Defendant

Bell’s discovery responses, which included the original requests, Plaintiff did not do what the

rule requires by explaining, with respect to each response, why it is deficient. This requirement

enables the Court to address the merits of each request and response individually. For these

reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to compel fails to comply with LRCiv 37.1(a).

Finally, Defendant asks the Court to award Defendant the reasonable costs and fees

associated with responding to the motion to compel. The Court, however, finds an award of

expenses and fees “unjust” at this time. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Because Plaintiff failed

to comply with the requirements in the Local Rules for bringing a motion to compel, the Court

did not reach the merits of his discovery disputes and no finding is made as to whether the

motion was “substantially justified.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 41, is DENIED

without prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01162-PGR-MEA Document 50 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 3