Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00563/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00563-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Ernest B. Jackson,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ABC Nissan, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-563-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant CTVT Motors, Inc.’s (“Camelback Toyota”)

Accounting of Expense Incurred in Connection with Motions to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 151).

As part of an Order dated January 24, 2006 (Dkt. 103), the Court granted Camelback Toyota

its expenses incurred in filing motions to compel (Dkts. 74, 87).

Camelback Toyota seeks $3,860.00 in fees related to its efforts to obtain discovery

responses from Plaintiff, preparing and urging the motions to compel, and preparing its

accounting of expenses and related documents. (Dkt. 151.) Camelback Toyota’s counsel

Stephanie K. Osteen billed 9.2 hours on these matters at a rate of $275.00 per hour. Her

associate W. Richmond Malone billed 7.6 hours on these matters at a rate of $175.00 per hour.

Camelback Toyota did not request an award of related expenses, such as photocopying costs

and mailing costs. 

Plaintiff has not responded to Camelback Toyota’s Accounting of Expenses within the

time allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their responsive memorandum was due

Case 2:03-cv-00563-SMM Document 156 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

no later than December 4, 2007. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objection to Camelback

Toyota’s fee request. 

The issuance of orders compelling disclosure or discovery is governed by Rule 37(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The award of expenses incurred in moving for a

protective order are, in turn, governed by Rule 37(a)(5). If the court grants a motion to compel,

the court shall require the party or attorney whose conduct necessitated the motion to compel

to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds the movant did not

attempt in good faith to obtain discovery without court action, opposition to the discovery was

substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(5)(A). The Court has found that Camelback Toyota attempted in good faith to obtain

discovery without court action, and that Plaintiff’s opposition to the sought discovery was not

substantially justified. In the absence of other circumstances which would make an award of

expenses unjust, the Court reaffirms its Order granting the attorney’s fees associated with

Camelback Toyota’s motions to compel.

Furthermore, after reviewing the affidavit and accounting of expenses filed by

Camelback Toyota’s counsel, and considering Plaintiff’s lack of objection to the fee award, the

Court finds the request of $3,860.00 for attorney’s fees related to its motions to compel

reasonable. Consequently, Plaintiff will be ordered to pay this amount to Camelback Toyota.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant CVTV Motors, Inc. is awarded $3,860.00

in attorney’s fees related to its motions to compel, to be paid by Plaintiff Ernest B. Jackson and

Attorney Stephen G. Montoya, jointly and severally. 

DATED this 13th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-00563-SMM Document 156 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2