Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01913/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01913-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrice Jerome, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Midway Holdings, Inc. et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-1913-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a complaint (Doc.1) asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621. Defendants Midway

Holdings, Inc. et al., have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s economic damages claim as

a discovery sanction or, in the alternative, to continue the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc.

55). The Court heard brief oral argument on the parties’ discovery dispute on January 19,

2006. The parties have completed their briefing on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss

the economic damages claim or to extend the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 60 & 62).

The discovery deadline in this case was October 3, 2005. At a status haring on

September 27, 2005, neither party brought to the Court’s attention any dispute regarding

discovery. It appears, however, that the parties had agreed that the deposition of Defendants’

former employee Jack Colson could be taken outside the discovery period without seeking

an order from the Court to this effect. The Court held a hearing on December 6, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 63 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

regarding a discovery dispute raised by Defendants. At issue was Defendants’ request for

information pertaining to Plaintiff’s damages in anticipation of a settlement conference set

for December 20, 2005. The Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide certain financial

information relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for damages in advance of the settlement conference.

It appears, however, that Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide relevant financial information

until after the settlement conference. At another hearing on January 13, 2006, the Court ruled

that the deposition of Mr. Colson should be taken no later than February 8, 2006. The Court

also extended the dispositive motion deadline to February 17, 2006. 

In the pending motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to provide

financial information relevant to her claim for economic damages. The alleged missing

information includes Plaintiff’s federal and state income tax returns for the 2002-2004 tax

years and bank statements from April 1, 2002 through the present, despite Defendants'

properly propounded and timely discovery requests. Defendants also point out that Plaintiff

did not provide original releases containing her signature until January 18, 2006. 

Plaintiff has essentially responded that all available financial information has been

provided. Plaintiff states in her response that she has not filed tax returns for several years

and is unable to produce any tax returns. Plaintiff states that she has provided Defendants

with a written estimate of her lost wages and that she cannot calculate her lost wages with

mathematical certainty. Plaintiff’s response does not appear to address Defendants’ request

for bank statements. 

The decision to impose sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 is within the Court's

discretion and the Court is afforded great latitude in the matter. Dahl v. City of Huntington

Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 367 (9th Cir. 1996). The harsh remedy of exclusionary sanctions is

reserved for extreme circumstances. Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.,180 F.

Supp. 2d 1021, 1061 (D.Ariz. 2002). The Court has considered Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for economic damages in the context of the following five factors:

(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)

the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice

to the [opposing party]; (4) the public policy favoring

Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 63 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

disposition of cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of

less drastic sanctions.

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004);

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Yourish v. California Amplifier,

191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 1999).

Upon consideration of these factors, the Court has determined that dismissal of

Plaintiff’s economic damages claim is not appropriate at this time. The preference is for

disposition of cases on their merits rather than dismissal. Moreover, the trial date has not

been set in this case.

The Court will grant Defendants until March 1, 2006 to complete any further

discovery on Plaintiff’s economic damages claim now that Defendants are in possession of

Plaintiff’s original signed releases. Within this time period, Plaintiff shall provide answers

to Defendants' written discovery requests to the extent presently due. Plaintiff further is

directed to provide to Defendants the requested bank records to the extent that any such

records are in Plaintiff's possession. The dispositive motions deadline shall be extended to

March 31, 2006.

The Court will consider any further claim by Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to

properly provide discovery on her economic damages claim in a subsequent appropriate

motion, such as a timely-filed motion in limine to limit or exclude evidence at trial. The

Court at that time also will consider any motion by Defendants for costs and attorneys’ fees

for failure of Plaintiff to timely provide discovery on her economic damages claim. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's economic damages

claim (Doc. 55) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to continue the dispositive

motion deadline (Doc. 55) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall complete discovery on

Plaintiff’s economic damages claim by March 1, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 63 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispositive motion deadline shall be extended

to March 31, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for expedited consideration

of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 56) is denied as moot. 

DATED this 15th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 63 Filed 02/16/06 Page 4 of 4