Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Olga A. Howard, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2196-PHX-ECV

ORDER

On November 18, 2005, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a "Motion for Order

Dismissing This Claim, or in the Alternative, Order Compelling Discovery" (Doc. #22).

Defendant contends in the motion that Plaintiff has not answered interrogatories served on

her in June, 2005. Defendant requests dismissal of this action or an order compelling

Plaintiff to answer the interrogatories. Defendant also requests that Plaintiff be ordered to

pay reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires interrogatories to be

answered within 30 days of when they were served, absent an alternative time period set by

the court or agreed to by the parties in writing. Nearly six months have passed since the

interrogatories were served and Plaintiff has presented nothing to justify this lengthy delay.

The court will order Plaintiff to serve her answers to the interrogatories within 30 days of this

order. The court finds that dismissal of the action is not an appropriate sanction at this time.

Regarding costs and attorneys' fees, the court will not award them at this time but if Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 26 Filed 12/05/05 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

- 2 -

fails to comply with the time limit set in this order, the court will reconsider awarding fees

for this motion and any subsequent motions that become necessary.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Defendant's "Motion for Order Dismissing This Claim, or in the Alternative,

Order Compelling Discovery" (Doc. #22) is granted in part and denied in part; the request

to dismiss is denied and the request to compel answers to the interrogatories is granted;

Plaintiff shall serve her answers to the interrogatories within 30 days of the date this order

is filed. 

DATED this 5th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 26 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2