Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02574-WDM-BNB.
September 13, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before me on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions [Doc. # 74, filed 5/21/2007] (the "Motion to Compel"). I ruled orally on the Motion to Compel during a hearing this morning, and my oral rulings are incorporated here. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record this morning:
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; and is GRANTED with respect to Requests for Production No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall serve full and complete responses to this discovery on or before September 27, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is DENIED with respect to Interrogatories No. 4, 5, and 6.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's request for sanctions is GRANTED. The plaintiff is awarded the fees and costs associated with bringing the Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs' counsel shall prepare a fee application and provide it to Mr. True on or before September 27, 2007. The fee application must include a statement of the amount of fees and costs sought; a supporting affidavit establishing the necessity and reasonableness of the fees and costs; and copies of contemporaneous time records supporting the fees sought. The parties thereafter shall confer in an attempt to reach agreement on the fee application. If the parties have not agreed and the amount of fees and costs has not been received by plaintiff's counsel on or before October 5, 2007, at 5:00 p.m., the plaintiff shall submit the fee application for court action, if at all, by the close of business on October 8, 2007.
This award of attorney fees is supported by the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(C) and by the fact that I find that the boilerplate objections to the discovery requests for which I have compelled responses were interposed for the improper purpose of delay. The defendants previously threatened that if a stay of discovery was not granted and if I allowed discovery to proceed, "[a] lengthy and expensive discovery battle will ensue. . . ." Defendants Motion to Stay Magistrate Judge's Order (etc.) [Doc. # 61, filed 4/11/2007] at p. 7. The defendants did resist discovery, as threatened, requiring the Motion to Compel and this order. Although I recognize that the defendants have the right to resist discovery in an appropriate instance, I find here that the defendants have engaged in abusive conduct for the improper purpose of delay. I previously found that defendant Roy B. True was engaged in "abusive conduct." Order [Doc. # 37, filed 2/15/2007] at p. 2, and I have cautioned the defendants that I will not tolerate abusive discovery conduct. Order [Doc. # 67, filed 5/3/2007] at p. 5. I again caution the defendants that I will not tolerate abusive discovery conduct. Failure by the defendants to fully comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include the exclusion of evidence, the imposition of negative inferences, and judgment by default.