Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Tami E. Henry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Universal Technical Institute, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01773-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Universal Technical Institute's ("UTI") motion to compel (doc.

114) and UTI's second motion to compel and motion for sanctions (doc. 116). Plaintiff did

not respond to either motion, and the time for responding has expired. We also have before

us plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 113) and UTI's response (doc. 115). Plaintiff did not

reply, and the time for replying has expired.

I

At this stage, the only remaining claim is plaintiff's allegation that UTI violated Title

VI when it denied him the right to take the induction systems test given in one of his classes,

an opportunity that was afforded to white students. Plaintiff moves for an order compelling

UTI to produce the original induction systems test sheets. According to plaintiff, the original

test sheets are relevant because he alleges that UTI altered the test scores when inputting the

handwritten test scores into the computer. UTI responds that it has already produced the

electronic test scores, which show the grades of all students enrolled in the induction systems

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 117 Filed 09/13/12 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 -

class. We agree with UTI that the original test sheets are not relevant to plaintiff's remaining

claim. Whether test scores for other students were altered is not relevant to the question of

whether plaintiff was denied the opportunity to retake or make up the induction systems test

because of race. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (limiting the scope of discovery to matters

relevant to a party's claim or defense).

II

During plaintiff's deposition, UTI states that plaintiff arrived 45 minutes late, walked

out twice, and refused to answer several questions. In addition, plaintiff has not served

responses to UTI's interrogatories or requests for production. Moreover, plaintiff identified

the following documents during his deposition which he has failed to produce: an August

2010 calendar, audiotapes he made of meetings with UTI and government officials, and

documents detailing other charges he filed against UTI. In its first motion to compel, UTI

asks the court to order plaintiff to appear again for a deposition in Phoenix, produce all

relevant documents, and pay for the court reporter and videographer to appear at the second

deposition. Because plaintiff did not respond, we construe the lack of a response as a

concession and grant the motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2(i) ("if the unrepresented party.

. . does not serve and file the required answering memoranda. . . such non-compliance may

be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

motion summarily").

In UTI's second motion to compel and motion for sanctions, UTI states that plaintiff

accused the court reporter of being racist and walked out on his son Alan Henry's deposition,

taking Alan Henry with him, less than an hour after it began. UTI's lawyer was required to

travel to Houston, Texas to conduct the deposition. UTI asks we order plaintiff to pay UTI's

costs and expenses to travel again to Texas to finish Alan Henry's deposition, including travel

expenses and costs for the court reporter and videographer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2)

(court may award sanctions if a person impedes, frustrates, or delays the fair examination of

a deponent). Plaintiff did not respond, thus we construe the lack of a response as a concession

and grant the motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2(i).

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 117 Filed 09/13/12 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 -

III

 IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 113).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING UTI's motion to compel (doc. 114). Plaintiff is

ordered to appear for a deposition in Phoenix and answer questions under oath. Plaintiff

shall contact UTI to schedule the deposition within three (3) days of the date this order is

docketed. Plaintiff shall serve responses to UTI's written interrogatories and requests for

production, and shall produce the August 2010 calendar, the audiotapes of meetings with

UTI and government officials, and other charges he filed against UTI within five (5) days of

the date this order is docketed.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING UTI's second motion to compel and motion for

sanctions (doc. 116). Plaintiff shall pay UTI's reasonable costs and expenses in traveling to

Texas a second time to finish Alan Henry's deposition, including travel expenses and costs

for the court reporter and videographer.

Discovery in this action closed on August 21, 2012. We extend the discovery

deadline for the limited purpose of allowing UTI to complete the depositions of plaintiff and

Alan Henry. This order shall not be construed to alter any other deadline set forth in the Rule

16 scheduling order, including the September 21, 2012 dispositive motion deadline.

Plaintiff is strongly admonished that his failure to comply with this Order will result

in serious sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

(9th Cir. 1986). 

DATED this 13th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 117 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3