Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02033/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02033-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gateway Deliveries, LLC )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:14-cv-02033 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Mattress Liquidators, Inc., et al., ) [Re: Motion at Docket 50]

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 50 plaintiff Gateway Deliveries, LLC (“Gateway”) moves pursuant to

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order compelling defendant

Mattress Firm, Inc. (“Mattress Firm”) to produce documents responsive to Gateway’s

second requests for production of documents (“RFP”) and for an award of attorney’s

fees. Mattress Firm opposes at docket 74; Gateway replies at docket 76. Oral

argument was not requested and would not assist the court.

II. BACKGROUND

The background to this case is set out in the court’s order at docket 31 and need

not be repeated here. Suffice it to say for present purposes that Mattress Firm’s

response to Gateway’s RFP, through counsel Gary L. Rosser, contained objections but

Case 2:14-cv-02033-JWS Document 102 Filed 12/03/15 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

no documents.1

 Gateway’s counsel, Stefan M. Palys, sent Mr. Rosser two emails in

August 2015 regarding the parties’ current discovery dispute.2

 Mr. Rosser did not

respond. Three days after the latter email, Gateway filed the present motion to compel.

 On August 26 the court granted Mattress Firm’s application to substitute Ronda

R. Fisk for Mr. Rosser as its attorney of record, but specifically retained jurisdiction to

order any relief that might be appropriate based on Mr. Rosser’s conduct in this case.3

Ms. Fisk states that after conferring with Gateway’s counsel, Mattress Firm produced

documents that, it believes, resolves the parties’ discovery dispute. Gateway confirms

that it received these documents, and it does not identify any problems with the

production.

III. DISCUSSION

Gateway’s motion for an order compelling Mattress Firm to produce documents

responsive to its RFP is denied as moot. The only remaining issue before the court is

whether an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate. Rule 37(a)(5) provides that if the

requested discovery is provided after a motion to compel is filed, the court ordinarily

“must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct

necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the

movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s

fees.” An attorney’s fee award is unwarranted, however, where “(I) the movant filed the

motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court

action; (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially

justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”4

1Doc. 50-1 at 13.

2

Id. at 16.

3Doc. 60.

4Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-02033-JWS Document 102 Filed 12/03/15 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

Mattress Firm argues that Gateway filed this motion before attempting in good

faith to obtain the discovery without court action. It notes that Gateway filed the motion

only two weeks after the court entered the parties’ stipulated protective order on

July 30,5 which triggered Mattress Firm’s obligation to produce the requested

documents. It also argues that Gateway should have made additional efforts to confer

with Mr. Rosser because it knew that he “had suffered serious health issues in the

past.”6 

The court agrees with Mattress Firm that, by filing this motion to compel only

eight business days after Mr. Palys first attempted to confer with Mr. Rosser, Gateway

did not engage in a good faith effort to avoid court intervention. Even more

troublesome, despite Mr. Palys’ LRCiv 7.2(j) certification that he personally consulted

with Mattress Firm’s counsel, the record reflects that he sent Mr. Rosser two emails but

did not talk to him in person or on the telephone. “Personal consultation requires

face-to-face communication, or at least telephone communication. Letters, faxes, and

e-mails are insufficient.”7

 Gateway’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Gateway’s motion at docket 50 is DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2015.

 

 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5Doc. 48.

6Doc. 74 at 2.

7Hart v. Agnos, No. CV-77-0479-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 2008966, at *7 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25,

2008). See also Sandpiper Resorts Dev. Corp. v. Glob. Realty Investments, LLC, No.

2:08-CV-01360 JWS, 2012 WL 2009965, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 5, 2012); Bustamante v. Graco,

Inc., No. CV03-182TUCJMR, 2005 WL 5976149, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 1, 2005) (“[A]ny . . .

statement that is filed in compliance with LRCiv 7.2(j) may not be based merely on written

correspondence between the parties.”) (emphasis in original).

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-02033-JWS Document 102 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 3