Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04069/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04069-2/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 and Luci Dishon,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Connie R Gorham and Gary K Haak, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-04069-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs Terry Dishon and Luci Dishon (“Plaintiffs”) allege Defendants Gary 

Haak (“Haak”) and Connie Gorham (“Gorham,” and collectively with Haak, 

“Defendants”) demanded payment from Plaintiffs in violation of a prior agreement 

between the parties. The case proceeded to discovery, during which several disputes 

arose. These disputes, described in the parties’ statements (Docs. 91, 95), are before the 

Court now. 

BACKGROUND 

 Discovery was scheduled to complete by September 28, 2018.1

 (Doc. 88.) 

Pursuant to discovery rules, Plaintiffs served Defendants with requests for admission, 

 

1

 In a separate but related suit assigned to Judge Humetewa, Haak alleged that Plaintiffs 

failed to compensate Haak for his services. While the present case was in discovery, 

Plaintiffs moved to transfer/consolidate Haak’s suit with the present suit. (Doc. 69.) 

Defendants then moved to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to 

transfer/consolidate. (Doc. 76.) On September 6, 2018, the Court granted transfer but 

not consolidation of Haak’s suit and denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. (Doc. 

84.) 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

requests for production, and interrogatories on June 28, 2018. In addition, Plaintiffs 

attempted to confer with Defendants regarding mutually agreeable dates for Defendants’ 

depositions. When Defendants failed to respond, Plaintiffs noticed Defendants’ 

depositions for August 22–23, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona. Defendants did not respond to 

either notice until the eve of the first deposition, when Haak informed Plaintiffs that he 

would not appear. At that time, Plaintiffs’ lawyers were already at the Dallas airport 

waiting to board their flight to Phoenix, and it appears they had purchased non-refundable 

tickets for their travel. 

 On September 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a discovery dispute requesting the Court to 

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

order Defendants to travel to Texas, where Plaintiffs’ counsel is located, for rescheduled 

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

production and interrogatories. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ requests, noting that 

Defendants had not provided a summary of their position and ordering the parties to 

consult and make a sincere effort to resolve the disputes. (Doc. 90.) The parties did not 

resolve their disputes and filed a joint statement on September 28, 2018, in which 

Plaintiffs again asked the Court to grant the three requests described above. (Doc. 91.) 

Due to inconsistencies in the parties’ representations regarding whether Defendants 

responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests,2

 the Court ordered the parties to file a joint 

statement clarifying their positions. (Doc. 94.) 

 On October 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a statement on discovery responses, 

including only Plaintiffs’ statement. (Doc. 95.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendants 

ignored Plaintiffs’ request to confer and did not contribute to the statement. Plaintiffs 

state that despite the parties’ agreement for Defendants to provide substantive discovery 

responses by September 26, Plaintiffs did not receive responses to interrogatories and 

 2

 For example, on September 28, Defendants represented they “have agreed to provide their discovery responses by September 26.” (Doc. 91 at 5:4.) Plaintiffs, on the other 

hand, stated they had not received any responses from Defendants as of September 28. Then, on October 1, Defendants stated in a separate filing that they sent discovery responses to Plaintiffs on September 28. (Doc. 93 at 2:10–14.) 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

responses to requests for admission until October 9. In addition, Plaintiffs did not receive 

responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production until October 11. Plaintiffs request the 

Court to (1) declare all Defendants’ objections to interrogatories to have been waived due 

to untimely response; (2) declare all the factual averments and matters contained in 

Plaintiffs’ requests for admission to be admitted as a matter of law and prohibit 

Defendants from seeking to introduce any evidence that would controvert, contradict, or 

minimize the legal effect of all such factual matters; (3) declare all Defendants’ 

objections to requests for production to have been waived and compel Defendants to 

produce all responsive information within 7 days. 

 The Court now decides the parties’ discovery disputes. For the foregoing reasons, 

Plaintiffs’ requests are granted in part and denied in part. 

I. Sanctions for Defendants’ Failure to Appear for Depositions 

Rule 37(d) allows for sanctions when a party fails to attend its own deposition. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(i) (providing for sanctions if a party “fails, after being served with 

proper notice, to appear for that person’s deposition”). Here, Defendants did not respond 

to Plaintiffs’ multiple requests to find mutually agreeable dates for depositions. Nor did 

Defendants respond to Plaintiffs’ deposition notices until the night before the deposition, 

when Plaintiffs’ attorneys were already at the airport traveling to Phoenix. When 

Defendant Haak finally responded, he informed Plaintiffs that he would not appear. 

 Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ statement that Plaintiffs made multiple attempts to 

confer about deposition dates, stating that Plaintiffs “made a single attempt via email on 

July 6, 2018.” (Doc. 91 at 2:22–23.) Defendants’ own exhibits show otherwise: 

Plaintiffs made at least three attempts and served deposition notices only after eight days 

with no response. (Doc. 91-3.) Defendants’ excuse that they did not receive deposition 

notices in the mail is similarly unavailing in light of United States Postal Service proof of 

delivery to Haak. (Doc. 91-1.) 

 Under these circumstances, Rule 37(d) sanctions are appropriate even if 

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery was pending at the time they failed to appear. The 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

pending motion does not excuse Defendants’ failure to appear. See, e.g., Nationstar 

Mortg., LLC v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Landscape Maint. Ass’n, 316 F.R.D. 327, 336 (D. 

Nev. 2016). In any event, Defendants should have conferred with Plaintiffs and/or 

submitted a joint statement to the Court regarding Defendants’ intent to not attend 

depositions well before their failure to appear. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 

37(d) sanctions for Defendants’ failure to attend their own depositions is granted. 

Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs, no later than November 7, 2018, the reasonable expenses 

incurred in preparing for depositions and traveling to Phoenix. Defendants shall file a 

notice of compliance no later than November 12, 2018.

II. Location and Time for Defendants’ Rescheduled Depositions 

 Because Defendants did not appear for their depositions, Plaintiffs now request an 

extension of the discovery deadline (originally scheduled to end September 28, 2018) so 

depositions may be taken within the discovery period. Plaintiffs also request the Court to 

order Defendants to give their depositions in Fort Worth, Texas, where Plaintiffs’ lead 

attorneys are located. 

 Plaintiffs’ request for the extension of the discovery deadline is granted. Rule 

16(b)(4) allows the modification of a schedule if good cause exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). Here, Plaintiffs have shown good cause: The need to reschedule Defendants’ 

depositions as a result of Defendants’ failure to appear. Discovery shall be completed by 

November 12, 2018. All other deadlines shall be extended in accordance with the 

extension of discovery. 

 On the other hand, the Court will not order Defendants to travel to Fort Worth, 

Texas for their rescheduled depositions. While the Court is sympathetic that Plaintiffs 

expended considerable time and resources in preparation for Defendants’ depositions, the 

Court has already awarded Plaintiffs monetary sanctions for Defendants’ failure to 

appear. 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

III. Defendants’ Discovery Responses 

Plaintiffs state that Defendants failed to timely respond to (1) interrogatories, (2) 

requests for admission, and (3) requests for production. While Defendants agreed they 

would provide all substantive discovery responses by September 26, Plaintiffs did not 

receive Defendants’ responses until October 9–11. The Court considers each issue in 

turn. 

 First, Plaintiffs served Defendants with interrogatories on June 28, 2018. 

Plaintiffs did not receive Defendants’ responses until October 9, over 100 days after 

service of the interrogatories and almost two weeks after their agreed-upon deadline for 

substantive discovery responses. Furthermore, Defendants apparently misrepresented the 

date on which they actually sent responses to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 95-1.) Rule 33(b)(2) 

provides: “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. 

Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, 

excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); see also Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 

1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Generally, in the absence of an extension of time or good cause, 

the failure to object to interrogatories within the time fixed by Rule 33 . . . constitutes a 

waiver of any objection.”) Here, Defendants do not offer good cause or any explanation 

for its failure to respond by the deadline. While the Court has given Defendants an 

opportunity to clarify and explain in a joint statement, (Doc. 94), Defendants failed to do 

so. Accordingly, all of Defendants’ objections to interrogatories have been waived. 

Defendants are ordered to respond substantively to each interrogatory “separately and 

fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 

 Second, Plaintiffs received Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for 

admission on October 9, also over 100 days after service of the requests and almost two 

weeks after the agreed-upon deadline. Plaintiffs request the Court deem Defendants 

admitted each of the factual matters as a matter of law due to Defendants’ untimely 

response. Rule 36(a) states a “matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being 

served [or by another agreed-upon time], the party to whom the request is directed serves 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Once a matter is admitted, it is “conclusively established unless the 

court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(b). Pursuant to Rule 36, all factual matters contained in Plaintiffs’ requests for 

admission are ordered admitted. However, the Court will consider a motion to withdraw 

should Defendants choose to file one on or before November 2, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(b) (“[T]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the 

presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would 

prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.”). 

 Third, Defendants’ responses to production requests, received by Plaintiffs on 

October 11, were also untimely. According to Plaintiffs, the “responses contain two 

pages of general objections, and objections to nearly every individual request.” (Doc. 95 

at 4:7–9.) Unlike Rule 33, Rule 34 does not provide that a party waives untimely 

objections to requests for production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Nevertheless, courts generally 

“deem all objections waived and grant a motion to compel” when a party fails to timely 

respond. Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 602 (S.D. Cal. 2012); see also Escalante 

v. Delano, No. 05CV689, 2006 WL 1376960, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“Failing to respond 

to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives all objections thereto, including 

claims of privilege and work product.”). Because Defendants failed to timely respond 

and provided no explanation for their failure, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to 

declare as waived all objections to the requests for production. Defendants shall, no later 

than October 27, 2018, produce any and all responsive documents, items, and tangible 

things to Plaintiffs. 

 Defendants are warned that failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in 

further sanctions. “Sanctions can take the form of barring witnesses, awarding attorneys’ 

fees, assessing fines,” or even entering default judgment. Murphy v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

NA, No. CV-10-01391, 2013 WL 1908346 (D. Ariz. May 7, 2013). Finally, the Court 

reiterates its concern to the pro se Defendants—raised in the Rule 16 Conference on 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

January 18, 2018—that it is advisable in all proceedings in federal court that parties have 

assistance of counsel. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ requests regarding discovery disputes, (Docs. 91, 

95), are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the deadlines are extended as follows: 

 Plaintiffs and Defendants shall disclose the identity of all persons who may be 

used at trial to present rebuttal evidence under FRE 701, 702, 703, 704, or 705 no later 

than December 17, 2018; 

 The parties shall finally supplement all discovery no later than January 28, 2019; 

 All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 11, 2019; 

 An Interim Rule 16 Status Conference is scheduled for February 19, 2019 at 

10:00 A.M.; 

 Parties are to prepare and file a Joint Status Report prior to the Interim Conference 

by February 11, 2019. 

 Dated this 19th day of October, 2018. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 98 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 7