Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02565/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02565-0/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

WO

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 Request for Telephonic Conference (Doc. #58).

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Bomax and Klein are avoiding their discovery obligations

by falsely claiming that no employment or other contractual arrangement ever existed

between Plaintiff and Bomax. Plaintiff attaches documents purportedly showing payments

into his inmate bank account from Bomax. Plaintiff contends that these documents establish

that he worked for Bomax and that Defendants' statements to the contrary show a fraud was

committed on the court.

In a prior order (Doc. #54) addressing a motion by Plaintiff to compel proper

responses to his non-uniform interrogatories, the court denied the request because the

questions were overly broad and burdensome. Additionally, the court found that the requests

were inapplicable in light of Defendants' assertion that they did not employ Plaintiff. In light

of Plaintiff's account records and his underlying claim that he was an employee as defined

in the Fair Labor Standards Act, it appears that Defendants are attempting to avoid their

discovery obligations by asserting a disputed legal issue as fact. The court has not decided

the issue of whether Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. Accordingly, unless and until

Case 2:02-cv-02565-DGC-ECV Document 59 Filed 11/03/05 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

 Defendants are reminded that given their failure to file timely initial disclosure

statements, the court explained in its prior order that additional noncompliance with the

court's orders will result in contempt proceedings and possible sanctions. The same is true

if Defendants fail to provide timely and complete responses to reasonable discovery requests

from Plaintiff.

- 2 -

that issue is decided in Defendants' favor, they must respond to proper discovery requests.

For these reasons, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to send 10 new non-uniform

interrogatories to Defendants Bomax and Klein. However, Plaintiff is warned that the court

will not permit the type of overly broad and burdensome requests in his first set of nonuniform interrogatories. Any new non-uniform interrogatories must be narrowly focused and

reasonable requests for information. Defendants must then provide timely and complete

responses to the requests.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

 That Plaintiff's Request for Telephonic Conference (Doc. #58) is denied in part and

granted in part. The motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff's request for a telephonic

hearing and his request for judgment against Defendants based on the conduct of Defendants

Bomax and Klein;

The motion is granted in that Plaintiff may send up to ten new non-uniform

interrogatories to Defendants Bomax and Klein on or before November 18, 2005.

Defendants Bomax and Klein must provide their responses to Plaintiff on or before

December 16, 2005. Given that the discovery deadline has now passed, see Doc. #39, no

further requests for discovery will be considered by the court absent extraordinary

circumstances. 

 DATED this 3rd day of November, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-02565-DGC-ECV Document 59 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2