Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00083/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00083-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JAMES STICKLE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:08-cv-00083 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

SCI WESTERN MARKET ) [Motion at Docket 2098]

SUPPORT CENTER, L. P., et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

BACKGROUND

Defendants filed a motion to compel at docket 2061. At docket 2092, the court

denied the motion to compel as moot based on plaintiffs’ representation in their

response at docket 2063 that the parties had agreed upon a resolution to the issue and

on the fact that defendants did not file a reply to contradict plaintiffs’ representation.

Defendants filed a request for clarification at docket 2096, which asked the court to

reconsider its denial of the motion to compel and direct the plaintiffs to answer the

disputed interrogatory more completely, without objection. The court issued another

order at docket 2097, again setting forth the reasons for its denial of the motion to

compel. 

Case 2:08-cv-00083-JWS Document 2104 Filed 09/12/13 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration at docket 2098, asking the

court to reconsider its order at docket 2097 and to direct plaintiffs to provide more

thorough responses to Interrogatory No. 1 of their Second Set of Non-Uniform

Interrogatories (“Interrogatory No. 1"). In the motion, defendants stress that they did not

file a reply brief to their original motion to compel because no reply briefs were allowed

by the court and argue that they do, in fact, challenge plaintiffs’ representation that the

discovery issue has been resolved. Defendants argue that there are still deficiencies in

plaintiffs’ responses to Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiffs’ response is at docket 2101, and

defendants’ reply is at docket 2103.

II. DISCUSSION

The court has reviewed all the filings related to defendants’ motion to compel and

request for clarification and concludes that the parties have not reached an agreement

about the discovery dispute. In plaintiffs’ response at docket 2063, they indicated that

they agreed to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 1 so that any references

to depositions would contain citations to specific portions of the relevant deposition. 

They stated that they would be submitting the supplemental responses within the week. 

They then argued that this agreement was a sufficient resolution to the discovery

dispute and that defendants’ motion to compel could be denied as moot. The court’s

scheduling order at docket 2048 did not allow for a reply and defendants did not file

anything further. The court denied the motion to compel as moot. 

However, through their motion for reconsideration, defendants argue that

plaintiffs’ purported resolution — supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 1 to

provide more specific citations when referencing depositions — was not a sufficient

2

Case 2:08-cv-00083-JWS Document 2104 Filed 09/12/13 Page 2 of 5
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

resolution because it did not address the other issues raised in the motion to compel. 

Defendants’ motion to compel also requested that plaintiffs submit a response to each

subquestion in Interrogatory No. 1 and that plaintiffs withdraw improper objections. 

It is not clear from the record what, exactly, the parties agreed to in regards to

this discovery dispute. There was some understanding prior to defendants’ motion to

compel that plaintiffs would submit supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 1, but

there must have been a misunderstanding as to what those supplemental responses

would address.1 Nevertheless, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ answers are

incomplete, even with the supplemental responses. 

Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 1 are incomplete because

they rely on objections.2

 At a hearing on February 5, 2013, the court determined that

Interrogatory No. 1 was appropriate, and plaintiff did not object.3 Plaintiffs had the

opportunity to object and failed to do so. Thus, any objection was waived at that time,

and plaintiffs cannot rely on objections to answer Interrogatory No. 1. 

Furthermore, plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 1 are

incomplete because they fail to answer each subquestion in Interrogatory No. 1. 

Instead, plaintiffs generally object and then reference other discovery documents

without specifying which documents are responsive to the various subquestions. Thus,

plaintiffs have failed to respond completely to Interrogatory No. 1 by failing to answer

1

 The email from plaintiffs’ counsel to defendants’ counsel on April 5, 2013, simply stated

that plaintiffs agreed to serve amended responses to Interrogatory No. 1 “as [counsel]

discussed” on April 3, 2013. See Doc. 2063-1 at p. 4.

2

Doc. 2096-1. 

3

Doc. 2060 at pp. 33-34.

3

Case 2:08-cv-00083-JWS Document 2104 Filed 09/12/13 Page 3 of 5
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

each subquestion or identify with particularity where in the other discovery documents

the answers to such subquestions are located. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs, including Marisia Farmer – the plaintiff acting on behalf of deceased plaintiff

Gordon Farmer, are directed to provide complete answers to each subquestion in

Interrogatory No. 1 without objection within fourteen (14) days from the date of this

order. To the extent plaintiffs answer the subquestions by reference to other discovery

responses, plaintiffs are directed to provide specific citations to indicate where in the

referenced document defendants can find the answers to each subquestion. If plaintiffs

do not have responsive information, they are directed to specifically state as much in

their supplemental responses. 

As for plaintiff Charlotte Stickle, who was the substituted party for deceased

plaintiff James Stickle, the record demonstrates that she is now deceased. Her notice

of death was filed on September 6, 2013, at docket 2102. Under Rule 25, the

decedent’s successor or representative has 90 days to request substitution. Thus, the

status of James Stickle’s claims is unclear at this time, and no supplemental response

need be filed related to the Stickle claims until it is clear that someone has been

substituted for the Stickle plaintiff. 

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5), defendants are awarded attorney’s fees and costs

incurred in connection with the filing of the motion to compel and motions for clarification

and reconsideration. Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum supporting the request within

fourteen (14) days from the filing of this order. Plaintiffs shall respond within seven (7)

4

Case 2:08-cv-00083-JWS Document 2104 Filed 09/12/13 Page 4 of 5
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

days from service of the memorandum. A reply may be filed within three (3) days from

service of the response. 

DATED this 11th day of September 2013. 

 

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 2:08-cv-00083-JWS Document 2104 Filed 09/12/13 Page 5 of 5