Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08256/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08256-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

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 

Robin Fleck, an individual,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 

et al, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-10-8256-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Robin Fleck has filed a motion to strike and for sanctions. The motion 

makes various arguments against Defendants: their written discovery responses were 

untimely, the responses violated Rule 11, the responses were not verified by proper 

corporate representatives, and Defendants failed timely to disclose a corporate 

representative. Doc. 41. Plaintiff seeks serious sanctions – that the responses be stricken 

and the requests for admission be deemed admitted. Id. Defendants have responded with 

a point-by-point rebuttal showing, for several reasons on each point, that Plaintiff’s 

motion is not well taken. Doc. 41. Plaintiff has filed nothing in reply. 

The Court will not devote substantial time to addressing the flaws in Plaintiff’s 

motion. The Court will, however, note some of the more obvious deficiencies. 

The Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. 23) provides: “The parties shall not 

file written discovery motions without leave of Court. If a discovery dispute arises, the 

parties promptly shall contact the Court to request a telephone conference concerning the 

dispute.” Doc. 23 ¶ 6(a). The Case Management Order also provides that discovery 

Case 3:10-cv-08256-DGC Document 54 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

disputes shall be raised with the Court before the close of discovery. Id. at ¶ 6(c). 

Plaintiff failed to comply with both of these provisions. 

The Case Management Order also states: “Parties shall not contact the Court 

concerning a discovery dispute without first seeking to resolve the matter through 

personal consultation and sincere effort as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 

7.2(j). Any briefing ordered by the Court shall also comply with Local Rule of Civil 

Procedure 7.2(j).” Id. at ¶ 6(b). Plaintiff’s motion does not contain the certification 

required by Local Rule 7.2(j) attesting that she complied with this requirement, and 

Plaintiff has provided nothing to rebut Defendants’ assertion that she did not. 

Plaintiff’s request for Rule 11 sanctions fails to comply with Rule 11. The motion 

was not filed separately from Plaintiff’s other sanctions requests as required by 

Rule 11(c)(2), nor was it served on Defendants 21 days before its filing in court as 

required by the same provision. 

Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ discovery responses were late. This assertion 

ignores the fact that the Plaintiff’s discovery requests were themselves untimely, being 

filed less than 45 days before the discovery deadline contrary to paragraph 4(b) of the 

Case Management Order. Doc. 23. Moreover, Defendants attach communications 

showing that the responses were provided within the time agreed to by Plaintiff 

(Doc. 42), a fact not disputed by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff claims that the discovery responses were verified by Jose Colon, an 

individual employed by Defendant AHNMSI but not employed by Defendant Citibank 

NA. Defendants note that Mr. Colon was authorized to sign for both Defendants (see 

Doc. 37-1 at 2), a fact not disputed by Plaintiff. 

The Court will not address the remaining issues raised in the motion and rebutted 

in the response, as none of them is addressed in a reply by Plaintiff. Suffice it to say that 

Plaintiff’s motion is not well taken and the Court will deny it. 

Defendants seek to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s 

motion. The Court is inclined to grant that relief, either against Plaintiff or her counsel or 

Case 3:10-cv-08256-DGC Document 54 Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

both, but must first afford Plaintiff and her counsel an opportunity to be heard. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). The parties shall address this issue on the schedule set forth below. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to strike and for sanctions (Doc. 37) is denied. 

2. By May 4, 2012, Defendants shall file a memorandum and supporting material 

setting forth the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s 

motion. By May 11, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a response. By May 16, 2012, 

Defendants shall file a reply. The initial memoranda shall not exceed seven 

pages each (exclusive of attachments) and the reply shall not exceed four 

pages. 

 Dated this 27th day of April, 2012. 

Case 3:10-cv-08256-DGC Document 54 Filed 04/27/12 Page 3 of 3