Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02012/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., a

Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Monitronics International, Inc., a Texas

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-2012-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently, before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Monitronics

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A). (Dkt. #51). Having reviewed the motion, the Court enters the

following Order.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

This is a tortious interference with contract case. The parties are competitors in the

business of monitoring and providing security alarm services. On June 2, 2005, the parties

alerted the Court of a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff Protection One Alarm Monitoring,

Inc.'s (“Protection One”) request for production of civil complaints Defendant Monitronics

International, Inc. (“Monitronics”) has filed against dealers alleging violation of

non-solicitation agreements. Monitronics objected to the production of these documents on

the basis production was unduly burdensome and irrelevant. However, in its response to the

motion for sanctions, Defendant argues solely its refusal to produce its civil complaints

Case 2:04-cv-02012-MHM Document 101 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

related to dealers violations of non-solicitation agreements was substantially justified because

these complaints are irrelevant to this litigation. At a hearing held on June 15, 2005, the

Court concluded the production of Monitronic's civil complaints was not unduly burdensome

or irrelevant.

II. Legal Standard

Rule 37 (a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides upon granting a

motion to compel “the court shall . . . require the party or deponent whose conduct

necessitated the motion . . . to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in

making the motion” unless the nondisclosure was substantially justified. FED. R. CIV. PRO.

37(a)(4)(A).

III. Discussion

Defendant argues its civil complaints are irrelevant because the subject of this

litigation is Defendant's alleged tortious interference with Plaintiff's non-solicitation

agreements. Defendant argues complaints related to its non-solicitation agreements with

dealers not subject to this litigation is irrelevant to Plaintiff's non-solicitation agreements.

Additionally, Defendant argues it was willing to stipulate to its knowledge of these industry

standard non-solicitation agreements and that Protection One's non-solicitation agreement

was enforceable.

Defendant has failed to meet its burden in establishing its position was substantially

justified. Specifically, production of Defendant's complaints is relevant to Defendant's

knowledge of industry-standard non-solicitation agreements and their enforceability.

Moreover, Defendant has failed to cite any authority for the proposition its willingness to

stipulate to the enforceability of Protection One's non-solicitation agreement relieves it of its

duty to produce relevant documents.

Identification of lawsuits is in the Arizona Civil Procedures form interrogatories.

Ariz. R. Civ. Pro. 84. (Form 6) (identifying civil lawsuits to which opposing side has been

a party). Furthermore, courts have found, documents relating to other lawsuits would tend

to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g. Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224

Case 2:04-cv-02012-MHM Document 101 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

F.R.D. 169 (E.D.Pa. 2004) (concluding in action alleging wrongful termination of disability

benefits, district court would properly allow discovery regarding insurers' involvement in bad

faith litigation during time that insured was requesting benefits, since such evidence was

relevant to insurers' purported misconduct and recidivism).

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Monitronics

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A) is GRANTED. (Dkt. #51). 

DATED this 29th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02012-MHM Document 101 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3