Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00288/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00288-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

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

Heather Lynn Salas, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CV 05-0288-PCT-PGR 

)

v. ) ORDER

)

United States of America, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________)

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to

Interrogatories and Production of Documents (Doc. 37). As grounds for their motion, the

Plaintiffs state that on May 26, 2005, they served their Request for Production of Documents

upon Defendant United States of America ("USA"); however, Defendant USA failed to serve

a response or objections to the discovery request and did not provide the requested

documents. On May 31, 2005, the Plaintiffs served their First Interrogatories upon the

Defendant USA and Defendant Barry Bialek and though Defendant Bailek timely responded

to the interrogatories, Defendant USA once again never served any response or objections.

On July 18, 2005, Plaintiffs served their First Request for Admissions together with their

Second Request for Interrogatories upon Defendant USA. Defendant USA responded,

although past the due date, to the Request for Admissions but never served any response or

objections to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Interrogatories. The Plaintiffs contend that the

Case 3:05-cv-00288-PGR Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 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

1 The Court recognizes that Harriet Bernick, Assistant United States Attorney, was recently

reassigned this case and is struggling to get up to speed as quickly as possible. 

- 2 -

failure of Defendant USA to provide interrogatory answers and requested documents is

causing unjustified delay in discovery and case preparation.

The Plaintiffs filed the current motion on October 18, 2005; however, the response

time passed without opposition from the Defendant USA. On December 9, 2005, the

Plaintiffs submitted a reply to the Court requesting that the Court summarily grant their

motion due to Defendant USA's failure to respond in opposition. In addition, the Plaintiffs

informed the Court that the Defendant USA had still not provided the requested discovery.

On December 16, 2005, the Defendant USA filed an untimely response to the motion asking

the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' motion since the parties were currently working together to

obtain the necessary documents.1

 

Due to the fact that the discovery sought from Defendant USA is necessary for the

Plaintiffs to finish depositions and prepare for trial, the Court declines to deny the motion.

The delay caused by Defendant USA's non-compliance with its discovery obligations is

preventing this case from moving forward. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and

Production of Documents (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. The Defendant USA is ordered to fully

answer Plaintiffs' First and Second Interrogatories and serve written responses to and produce

the documents requested by Plaintiffs' May 26, 2005 Requests for Production within ten (10)

days from the entry of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs are awarded their reasonable

attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-00288-PGR Document 54 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2