20071-20071-00001\JXS\JXS\3197337.1

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

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602.248.1000

Kraig J. Marton (003816)

kjm@jaburgwilk.com

Jeffrey A. Silence (029143)

jxs@jaburgwilk.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thacker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Thacker,

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert Donat, 

individually,,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00063-DJH

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SEEKING 

LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE ONE

CONSOLIDATED MOTION

ADDRESSING UNRESOLVED 

DISCOVERY ISSUES AND REQUEST 

FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

(Assigned to Honorable Diana J. 

Humetewa)

(Request for Expedited Ruling and 

Evidentiary Hearing) 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order (Doc. 69), the parties have now met and conferred 

(telephonically on July 27 and July 31, 2018) to discuss the 59 issues that Plaintiff, 

Jeremy Thacker (“Jeremy”), raised in his June 18, 2018 discovery letter to Defendants. 

The parties resolved some issues but have reached an impasse as to 32 of the 59 issues. 

Plaintiffs’ Position: In addition to seeking a Court ruling addressing these 32 

unresolved issues, we will be seeking sanctions for Defendants’ failure to preserve 

and/or disclose highly relevant information. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Jeremy is 

limited to two pages for discovery disputes. (Doc. 23 p. 4:14-23). Pursuant to the 

Court’s recent minute entry (Doc. 69), the Court granted Jeremy seven pages (with 

twelve pages of attachments) to explain his position as to any unresolved discovery 
2

141296755.1

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

issues (presently 32 unresolved issues) arising from his June 18, 2018 letter. The Court 

also gave Jeremy the opportunity to file a 2-page motion (with 5 pages of attachments)

addressing his concerns about Defendants’ 30(b)(6) witnesses being unprepared to 

answer the questions about the topics for which they were each designated. (Doc. 69). 

The unresolved discovery issues (many of which are not addressed in the June 18 

letter) are so numerous and foundational that Plaintiff seeks guidance from the Court on 

how to present all of these issues to the Court. Jeremy believes that the most efficient 

way to present all of the remaining discovery issues is through one consolidated 25-

page motion (with 25 pages of attachments). This will afford Jeremy an opportunity to 

outline the relevant facts and issues in one cohesive motion that outlines the entirety of 

what we contend are significant discovery violations. Jeremy realizes this is far beyond 

the two-page (and seven-page) limit, but he believes that this would to be a more 

efficient approach than filing multiple discovery motions as to each of the many 

unresolved issues. Jeremy will also be seeking sanctions for Defendants’ admitted 

spoliation of evidence and refusal to produce relevant information, despite repeated 

requests. This one motion will address all unresolved discovery issues including 

Jeremy’s request for sanctions. 

Jeremy’s seven-page discovery motion is due August 16, 2018. Jeremy therefore 

seeks an expedited ruling addressing this request. Jeremy also requests an evidentiary 

hearing to address these issues after they have been fully briefed. 

Meet and Confer Efforts: Jeremy’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel, 

Stefan Palys, asking him to provide his response to this discovery motion, as required 

by the Court’s Scheduling Order. Mr. Palys responded via email by stating, “Your 

motion does not fall within the scope of the judge's joint statement procedure. We will 

not join in it.” Jeremy’s counsel then sent a follow up email stating, “In what way does 

our motion not fall within the scope of her procedure? Please be specific.” Mr. Palys 

responded, “Joint motions are to raise discovery disputes. You’re asking to alter briefing 
3

141296755.1

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

procedures.” Mr. Palys then later responded in a separate email, “When you file a 

motion I will respond to it. I’m not jointly filing one for the reason I already said.” 

DATED this 7th day of August, 2018.

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

s/Kraig J. Marton

Kraig J. Marton

Jeffrey A. Silence

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thacker

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 7th day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys

Michael A. Vincent

Stinson Leonard Street, LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

Carrie.francis@stinson.com

Stefan.palys@stinson.com

Michael.vincent@stinson.com

Attorneys for Defendants GPS Insight, LLC

Timothy B. O’Connor

Schneider & Onofry, PC

365 East Coronado Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Donat 

s/ Kim Rogers