Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01931/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01931-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability corporation, and Jaburg &

Wilk, P.C., a professional corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Shawn Richeson, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1931-PHX-NVW

ORDER AND OPINION

[Re: Dockets 60, 67 and 68]

Before the Court is Defendant Richeson’s “Motion for Summary Judgement Based

on Deemed Admissions” (Doc. 60) and his “1st Amended Motion for Summary Judgment”

(Doc. 68). The Court will deny these motions.

As the title suggests, Richeson’s original motion relies entirely on Xcentric’s lack of

response to his requests for admission. Richeson’s “amended” motion relies on the same

requests for admission. “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties

have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). It appears that

Richeson has not followed this Rule. Xcentric argues that it has not had a Rule 26(f)

conference with Richeson, and Richeson’s only reply is that “Richeson and Speth had

conferred as required under 26(f) on Friday the 22nd day of October 2010.” (Doc. 62 at 3.)

But the only communication in the record between Richeson and Speth on October 22 was

Case 2:10-cv-01931-NVW Document 69 Filed 12/15/10 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 -

an e-mail exchange to which Richeson attached his requests for admission and stated, “I

understand some of my discovery requests may be premature and obviously we have not

concluded our 26F hearing.” (Doc. 61 at 10.) Speth did not agree to obtain responses

anyway, but rather replied, “[W]e still have to wait until discovery opens.” (Id.) If Richeson

and Speth had actually held a Rule 26(f) conference on October 22, then they should have

submitted their proposed discovery plan within 14 days of that conference. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(f)(2). No such report appears on the docket.

The Court therefore finds that Richeson served his requests for admission before the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permitted him to do so. Accordingly, Xcentric had no

obligation to respond, see, e.g., Wada v. U.S. Secret Service, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10–11

(D.D.C. 2007), and the Court will not deem the requests admitted. Absent such admitted

requests, Richeson cannot show the lack of a genuine dispute over a material fact, and

summary judgment must be denied.

The Court will also deny summary judgment for failure to specify the claims for

which Richeson seeks judgment. Richeson’s motion asks for judgment “resolving

Richeson’s causes of action against Xcentric.” (Doc. at 5.) His only cause of action is a

RICO counterclaim. (See Doc. 48.) But Richeson has since withdrawn that counterclaim.

(Docs. 63, 64.)

In his reply in support of summary judgment, Richeson offered two potential

arguments that his motion is not moot. First, he attached an e-mail he sent to Speth stating

that he is “looking for a final summary judgment in the capacity of defendant” (Doc. 62 at

8), suggesting that he now asks the Court to enter summary judgment in his favor on

Xcentric’s claims. Second, in the reply itself, he asked the Court to “wrap these deemed

admissions around any legal doctrine that applies and enter an appropriate order using the

same.” (Id. at 6.)

The Court cannot grant summary judgment in the abstract. Richeson must show an

absence of genuine dispute over a material fact as it relates to an element of a claim or

Case 2:10-cv-01931-NVW Document 69 Filed 12/15/10 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 -

defense. The Court cannot begin that analysis without knowing the claim or defense on

which Richeson seeks judgment. Further, this Court has no duty to search for a legal

doctrine that would entitle Richeson to judgment. Accordingly, the Court will deny summary

judgment for this reason as well.

After summary judgment briefing closed, Richeson filed his “1st Amended - Counter

Claim Against Xcentric Ventures LLC. 18 USC 1512 - Witness Tampering.” (Doc. 67.)

Richeson may not file amended counterclaims without leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2). The Court will therefore strike this document.

Finally, the parties’ summary judgment briefs show that Richeson has mailed

pleadings directly to Speth’s home address without her consent. (Doc. 61 at 7–8; Doc. 62

at 7.) The Court has previously warned Richeson about calling attorneys or parties on their

home telephone numbers (Doc. 37 at 10), and the Court similarly warns Richeson that

mailing litigation-related documents to parties’ or their attorneys’ home addresses is not

appropriate absent consent or extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Richeson’s “Motion for Summary Judgement

Based on Deemed Admissions” (Doc. 60) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richeson’s “1st Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment” (Doc. 68) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richeson’s “1st Amended - Counter Claim Against

Xcentric Ventures LLC. 18 USC 1512 - Witness Tampering” (Doc. 67) is STRICKEN.

DATED this 15th day of December 2010.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-01931-NVW Document 69 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 3