Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01427/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01427-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

James L. Gagan, )

c/o David G. Bray )

Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre ) No. CIV 99-1427-PHX-RCB

Friedlander, P.A. )

2901 N. Central Ave., )

Suite 200 )

Phoenix, AZ 85012, ) O R D E R

 )

 Plaintiff/Judgment )

 Creditor, )

 )

vs. )

 )

James A. Monroe, et al., )

12880 East Mercer Lane )

Scottsdale, AZ 85259, )

 )

 )

 Defendant/Judgment )

 Debtor. )

 )

Currently pending before the court is plaintiff Gagan’s

motion to compel (Doc. 470). Plaintiff is seeking to compel

defendant Monroe to “provide complete and non-evasive written

discovery responses, [and to] submit to a deposition[.]” 

Mot. (Doc. 470) at 3:12. No opposition has been filed as

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 478 Filed 04/08/13 Page 1 of 6
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 LRCiv 7.2(c) provides that an opposing party has “fourteen (14)

days after service in a civil . . . case within which to serve and file a

responsive memorandum.” Defendant Monroe was served by mail at his last

known address: 12880 East Mercer Lane, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259. Mot.

(Doc. 470), Notice of Electronic Filing at 2. Thus, calculating the time

to respond in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), and considering that this

motion to compel was filed on March 18, 2013, defendant Monroe had until

April 4, 2013 by which to respond, but he did not. 

- 2 -

LRCiv 7.2(c) allows, and the time to do so has passed.1

Background

 Plaintiff Gagan served interrogatories and requests for

production of documents upon defendant Monroe on January 15,

2013. Mot. (Doc. 470), exh. A thereto (Doc. 470-1) at 2. 

Pursuant to an order of this court, defendant Monroe was

required to “provide responses to [plaintiff’s] written

discovery by no later than February 18, 2013[.]” Id., exh. D

thereto (Doc. 470-4) at 12:14-15, ¶ (2) (emphasis in

original). That order further required defendant Monroe to

“make himself available for deposition within the next 45

days after written discovery responses are served[.]” Id. at

2:16-18 (emphasis in original). 

On February 26, 2013, eight days late, the plaintiff did

receive written discovery responses from defendant Monroe. 

Mot. (Doc. 470) at 2, ¶ 5. As detailed in plaintiff’s

correspondence to defendant Monroe, those “responses were

evasive and incomplete.” Id.; see also id., exh. A thereto

(Doc. 470-1) at 2-8. Therefore, as Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1)

mandates, on March 6, 2013, plaintiff wrote to defendant

Monroe in “a good faith effort to obtain proper responses and

production of documents without court intervention.” Id.,

exh. A thereto (Doc. 470-1) at 2. After outlining the

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 478 Filed 04/08/13 Page 2 of 6
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 -

various deficiencies in defendant’s discovery responses,

plaintiff requested that Monroe “provide complete and nonevasive discovery responses as requested . . . [by] no later

than March 14, 2013.” Id. at 8. 

Defendant Monroe’s counsel at the time, David Carmichael

responded to plaintiff’s letter request by forwarding a copy

of that letter to defendant Monroe via e-mail, with a copy to

plaintiff’s attorney, David Bray. Id., exh. B thereto (Doc.

470-2) at 2. In that e-mail, attorney Carmichael advised Mr.

Bray that he had “no objection to [Bray] contact [defendant

Monroe] directly.” Id. Therefore, on March 11, 2013,

plaintiff’s counsel contacted defendant Monroe via e-mail,

attaching a copy of the March 6, 2013 letter, and requesting

that Monroe “advise as to the status of [his] responses[.]”

Id., exh. C thereto (Doc. 470-3) at 2. A copy of this

court’s order discussed above was also attached to that email. Hence, plaintiff requested that defendant Monroe

provide dates he was “available for deposition during the

last week of March and first week of April.” Id.

When no response was forthcoming, on March 14, 2013,

plaintiff again contacted defendant Monroe via e-mail, with a

copy to his counsel at the time, Mr. Carmichael. In that email, plaintiff explained that due to a lack of response from

defendant Monroe, he would be seeking court intervention to

compel Monroe to “provide complete written discovery

responses and submit to the deposition the Court previously

ordered.” Id., exh. D thereto (Doc. 470-4) at 2. 

Defendant Monroe did not: (1) comply with this court’s

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 478 Filed 04/08/13 Page 3 of 6
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 Not only was defendant Monroe’s counsel at the time served with

this motion, but defendant himself was also served, as mentioned in the

preceding footnote. 

- 4 -

February 8, 2013 order; (2) timely respond to plaintiff’s

written discovery demands; (3) respond to plaintiff’s request

that he supply more complete discovery responses by March 14,

2013; (4) respond to plaintiff’s March 11, 2013 request that

he apprise plaintiff of the status of his discovery

responses; (5) provide possible deposition dates, as

plaintiff requested; or (6) file a response to this motion.

Discussion

In compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1), plaintiff Gagan

“[o]n notice to other parties and all affected persons,”2

moved this court “for an order compelling . . . discovery.” 

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). That motion also included the

necessary certification that plaintiff had made a “good

faith” attempt to obtain discovery without court

intervention, as earlier noted. See cite. In considering a

motion to compel, Rule 37(4) directs that “an evasive or

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as

a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

37(4). 

Based upon defendant Monroe’s failure to comply with this

court’s discovery order, combined with his failure to respond

to any of the requests enumerated above and his failure to

respond to this motion, it is abundantly clear that plaintiff

Gagan is entitled to the discovery relief which he is seeking

herein. Therefore, the court grants plaintiff’s motion to

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 478 Filed 04/08/13 Page 4 of 6
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 The court did previously indicate that it would be using

defendant Monroe’s P.O. Box address for service of its April 1, 2013 order

only. See Gagan v. Monroe, 2013 WL 1339935, at *6 (D.Ariz. April 1, 2013);

Ord. (Doc. 475) at 14:2-5. However, in an abundance of caution and because

this court’s March 22, 2013 order (doc. 472) was returned as undeliverable

when mailed to the East Mercer Lane address, once again, the court is

ordering service upon defendant Monroe at his last known P.O. Box address

as stated above. 

- 5 -

compel. Defendant Monroe is advised that his failure to

fully comply with this discovery order, including the time

frames set by this court, or otherwise fail to cooperate in

discovery in this matter, may result in sanctions, including

possible contempt proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) plaintiff Gagan’s motion to compel (Doc. 470) is 

GRANTED;

(2) defendant James A. Monroe shall file complete and 

non-evasive discovery responses, without objection, 

on or before May 3, 2013;

(3) defendant James A. Monroe shall make himself

available for a deposition within the next 45 days

after the service of written discovery responses;

and defendants James A. Monroe shall fully cooperate

with plaintiff’s counsel in establishing the date

and time for his deposition; 

(4) the Clerk of the Court shall place a copy of this

order in the United States mail, postage prepaid,

first class to defendant James A. Monroe, 12880 East

Mercer Lane, Scottsdale, Arizona and to defendant

James A. Monroe, P.O. Box 5322, Scottsdale, Arizona

85261;3 and

. . .

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 478 Filed 04/08/13 Page 5 of 6
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

4 Also in an abundance of caution, the court is directing service

upon defendant Monroe at his last known e-mail address which he used as

recently as February 5, 2013. See Gagan, 2013 WL 139935, at *2; Ord. (Doc.

475) at 4:6-8. 

- 6 -

(5) the Clerk of the Court shall provide defendant James 

A. Monroe with a copy of this order electronically

to his last known e-mail address: jimmonroe@cox.net4 

DATED this 8th day of April, 2013.

Copies to counsel of record; James A. Monroe (12880 East

Mercer Lane, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259; P.O. Box 5322,

Scottsdale, Arizona 85261; and jimmonroe@cox.net); and

Kimberly Sullivan pro se (12880 East Mercer Lane, Scottsdale,

Arizona 85259).

Case 2:99-cv-01427-RCB Document 478 Filed 04/08/13 Page 6 of 6