Imaginarium v. United States Small Business Administration et al, No. 2:2021cv00752 - Document 35 (D. Utah 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 21 Motion for Short Term Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 07/13/2022. (jl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Imaginarium v. United States Small Business Administration et al Doc. 35 Case 2:21-cv-00752-TS-DBP Document 35 Filed 07/13/22 PageID.224 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION IMAGINARIUM, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Case No. 2:21-cv-00752-TS-DBP v. District Judge Ted Stewart UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION and ISABELLA Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead CASILLAS GUZMAN, Administrator, United States Small Business Administration, Defendants. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Short Form Discovery. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that is attached to the motion. Plaintiff also seeks fees and reasonable expenses in bringing the motion. Defendants have now responded to the motion and there is no need for additional argument. 1 Based on the large volume of materials sought by Plaintiff and the agreement to extend the discovery deadlines in this case, the court will deny the motion without prejudice. As noted in a prior order, this matter arises from SBA’s actions in response to Imaginarium’s application for an SBA grant under the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant (“SVOG”) program 15 U.S.C. § 9009a. On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed their motion to compel and receiving no response from Defendants, the court entered an order to show cause. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants subsequently filed a response and commendably, the parties reached an 1 See DUCivR 7-1. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00752-TS-DBP Document 35 Filed 07/13/22 PageID.225 Page 2 of 3 agreement to extend the discovery deadline that the court granted in an amended scheduling order. (ECF No. 28.) The court does not restate Plaintiff’s discovery requests here as they are attached as an exhibit to the motion. In passing, the court does note they do appear rather broad, which unfortunately is not that uncommon in modern civil litigation. In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants point to the requests and the time necessary to respond in producing such a large volume of documents. For example, there are “more than 13,000 pages of emails and email attachments”, and requests for documents regarding “10 competing companies that promote events similar to Imaginarium’s”, which consists of thousands of more pages. Defendants have agreed to produce Imaginarium’s application and file, but do question the relevance of the competing companies’ documents and files. Yet, Defendants “have agreed to continue discussions with Imaginarium’s counsel in an effort to reach an agreement on this issue.” (ECF No. 32 p. 3.) Defendants assert that an order compelling production is unnecessary at this time given the large production of materials and that the parties are still working through that production. While the court agrees that an order compelling production is unnecessary at this time given the requests and Defendants’ efforts in seeking to comply, Defendants’ failure in filing a timely response to the motion, without the court’s intervention, does give the court cause for concern. A large document production does not negate the need to file a timely response to a motion to compel. In similar fashion, a request for thousands and thousands of documents along with an expectation that they should be produced quickly should be tempered by patience, or narrowing the discovery requests from the start to reduce such a production. In short, based on the facts before the court, the court will deny the motion without prejudice. See Smash Tech., 2 Case 2:21-cv-00752-TS-DBP Document 35 Filed 07/13/22 PageID.226 Page 3 of 3 LLC v. Smash Sols., LLC, 335 F.R.D. 438, 451 ((D. Utah 2020) (finding circumstances making an award of costs and attorney’s fees unjust). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 13 July 2022. Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
