Chudacoff v. University Medical Center Of Southern Nevada et al
Filing
634
ORDER Denying 373 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions re Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
RICHARD CHUDACOFF,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:08-cv-00863-RCJ-GWF
ORDER
Motion for Sanctions (#373)
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (#373), filed on
15
March 2, 2012. Defendants filed a timely Opposition (#404) on March 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed a
16
timely Reply (#425) on March 26, 2012.
17
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants Ellerton, Carrison, Bernstein, Roberts, and
18
Medical Staff of UMC (“Defendants”) for untimely noticing the deposition of the person most
19
knowledgeable of third-party Delphi Healthcare Partners, Inc. The previous district judge in this
20
case extended discovery until February 21, 2012. See Doc. #340 at 7:10-11. Defendants moved for
21
an additional extension on February 10, 2012. See Doc. #355. Defendants represent that on
22
February 21, Plaintiff served his twenty-third Supplement to his Initial Disclosures wherein he
23
identified the Person Most Knowledgeable of Delphi as a witness. Plaintiff represents that
24
Defendants noticed Delphi’s deposition on March 1, 2012. The previous district judge, noting
25
Plaintiff’s “last minute disclosures,” see Doc. #493 at 5:5, granted Defendants’ Motion (#355) on
26
July 6, 2012 and extended discovery “for a period of sixty days following the filing of Plaintiff’s
27
fifth amended complaint[.]” Id. at 13:11-12. This Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Stay
28
Discovery (#517) pending ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#545) on January 17, 2013.
1
See Minutes of Proceedings, Doc. #603. This Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order
2
(#372) regarding the subject subpoena on January 17, 2013. See Doc. #604.
3
Courts have “wide latitude” to exercise discretion in sanctioning parties under Federal Rule
4
of Civil Procedure 37. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th
5
Cir.2001). “Implicit in Rule 37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party facing sanctions to prove
6
harmlessness.” Id. at 1107. In determining whether a violation of a discovery deadline is justified
7
or harmless, courts may consider (1) prejudice or surprise to the other party; (2) the ability of that
8
party to cure the prejudice; (3) the likelihood of disruption of the trial; and (4) bad faith or
9
willfulness involved in not timely disclosing the evidence. Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Novelty, Inc., 375
10
Fed.Appx. 705, 713 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th
11
Cir.2003)). The Court finds that Defendants’ subpoena for Delphi did not prejudice Plaintiff, did
12
not disrupt trial, and was not issued in bad faith. Furthermore, in light of the stay the Court
13
imposed in this case and the discovery extension granted by the district judge, see Doc. # 493,
14
sanctions are not warranted. Accordingly,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (#373) is denied.
16
DATED this 19th day of February, 2013.
17
18
19
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
