Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02565/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02565-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Clint D. Bourne, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bomax, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-2565-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default

(Doc. #60), filed on January 5, 2006. Plaintiff contends in his motion that Defendants have

repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders issued by the court and that a default

judgment against them is the appropriate remedy. However, many of the "facts" listed by

Plaintiff to support his motion are simply false. For example, Plaintiff asserts that

Defendants have not complied with the court's orders to provide him with their initial

disclosure statement. But, Document #57 filed on September 14, 2005 is a Notice of Service

of Defendants' Rule 26 Disclosure Statement indicating that it was sent to Plaintiff on that

date. Other purported "facts" are similarly flawed. Although there is no question that

Defendants have failed to meet numerous discovery deadlines, the court finds that because

the required disclosures were eventually submitted a default judgment is not an appropriate

sanction at this time. 

However, Plaintiff accurately points out that Defendants have failed to comply with

the court's most recent discovery order. On November 3, 2005, the court permitted Plaintiff

to send up to ten new non-uniform interrogatories to Defendants by November 18, 2005,

Case 2:02-cv-02565-DGC-ECV Document 62 Filed 02/22/06 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

- 2 -

which he did. Doc. #59, #60 at Exh. 1. Defendants were ordered to respond to the

interrogatories on or before December 16, 2005. Doc. #59. In their response to the motion

before the court however, which was filed on January 19, 2006, Defendants state that they

anticipate submitting their answers in the "near future." Doc. #61. When the court has

ordered that they respond by a date certain, Defendants are not free to simply respond at their

leisure. With the end of February approaching, Defendants have still not submitted their

answers to the interrogatories. Accordingly, if Defendants do not submit full and complete

answers to the interrogatories or move for a protective order on or before March 3, 2006, the

court will order Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court

and sanctioned as appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default (Doc. #60) is denied; and

That on or before March 3, 2006, Defendants shall submit full and complete answers

to the interrogatories or, if a basis exists, move for a protective order.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

 

Case 2:02-cv-02565-DGC-ECV Document 62 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2