Steve Magner St. Paul Code - Google SearchCity 1st RICO law suit against City of Saint Paul 2nd St. Paul RICO lawsuit 3rd RICO lawsuit against City of St. Paul Certificate of Occupancy supplements 
Thursday, June 14, 2007
City St.Paul RICO violationsSteve Magner
Steve Magner St. Paul Code - Google SearchCity 1st RICO law suit against City of Saint Paul 2nd St. Paul RICO lawsuit 3rd RICO lawsuit against City of St. Paul Certificate of Occupancy supplements 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"City of Saint Paul Attempting To Withhold Evidence In RICO Suits."
41 Comments -
Show Original Post
Collapse comments
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al., and Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., through their
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 9
2
undersigned counsel, submit this Joint Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel conferred on March 12, 2007, regarding the Defendants’ failure to provide answers to interrogatories and responses to discovery requests by discovery due dates of March 1, 2007 and March 2, 2007.
The Court’s Scheduling Order includes a deadline for serving and filing non-dispositive motions of March 15, 2007. Because Defendants’ have failed to provide answers to interrogatories and responses to document requests before the non-dispositive motion deadline, Plaintiffs have filed the present motion in order to preserve their right to enforce the discovery Rules related to Defendants’ failure to comply with the http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/local_rules.pdf
Rules and related to any further non-compliance by Defendants.
FACTS
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Gallagher, et al., case served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service, hand delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 30, 2007. Affidavit of Matthew Engel dated March 15, 2007, Ex. A.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). See Engel Aff., paragraph 3.
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Steinhauser, et al., and Harrilal, et al. cases served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service by hand
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 9
3
delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 31, 2007. See Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker dated March 15, 2007, paragraph 2 and Exhibit “A,” thereto.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). See Aff. Shoemaker, paragraph 3.
On March 9, 2007, Counsel for the Steinhauser and Harrilal Plaintiffs forwarded a letter to Defendants’ counsel by facsimile transmission noting the failure of Defendants to timely respond to the served discovery requests and scheduling a conference to discuss the matter in an attempt to obtain responses without Court involvement. See Aff. Shoemaker, paragraph 4, and Exhibit “B,” thereto.
On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred in good faith with Ms. Seeba, attorney for Defendants, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 5.
During the meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 6.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 9
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 7.
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8.
Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8.
On March 13, 2007, for the Gallagher Plaintiffs forwarded a second letter to counsel for Defendants concerning Defendant’s failure to serve complete discovery responses and confirming discussion of counsel during the March 12, 2007 conference. See Engel’s Aff., paragraph 8, and Exhibit “ B,” thereto.
On March 14, 2007, Counsel for the Steinhauser and Harrilal Plaintiffs forwarded a follow-up letter to counsel for Defendants concerning Defendant’s failure to serve complete discovery responses before the non-dispositive motion deadline and confirming the
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 9
5
discussions of counsel at the March 12, 2007 conference. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 9 and Exhibit “C,” thereto.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery into any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Information sought in discovery need not be admissible at trial, so long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (West 2007).
Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)(1), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c) (West 2007).
Requests for production of documents may relate to “any designated documents…which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)…” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) (West 2007).
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, et al., Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et al. seek to compel Defendants to serve Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories. Rule 33(b)(3) provides that answers to interrogatories shall be served within 30 days of service. Rule 34(b) provides that responses to requests for production of documents shall be served within 30 days of service. Fed.R.Civ.P., 33 (b)(3) (West 2007).
Rule 37(a)(2)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 9
6
motion the Court for an Order compelling another party to properly respond to discovery requests. Fed.R.Civ.P., 37 (a)(2)(a) (West 2007).
Rule 37 requires certification that the party seeking an order to compel discovery attempted to resolve the discovery dispute by meeting and conferring with the opposing counsel, or at least attempting to meet with opposing counsel to discuss the relevant issues before filing the motion. Local Rule 37.1 also requires the same efforts to resolve the dispute.
Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Rule 37. See Aff. of Engel and Aff. of Shoemaker.
The Defendants failed to respond by March 1, 2007, for the Gallagher discovery requests and by March 2, 2007, for the Steinhauser and Harrilal discovery requests. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide answers to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents by the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007 set forth in the Court’s Pre-trial Scheduling Order.
As a result, Plaintiffs’ counsel was forced to bring the present motion in order to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights to receive from Defendants written responses to the subject discovery requests and to ensure that those responses comply with the discovery rules.
At this time, Plaintiffs seek from Defendants complete responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests including formal written answers to all interrogatories and formal written responses to each of the document requests.
Because Defendants have not served their answers and responses by the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs’ are unable to address any eventual objection by Defendants or
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 9
7
the inadequacy of any response. When Defendants do submit their discovery responses, Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants may present certain objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and document requests.
Plaintiffs submit that Defendants have waived their right to objection to fully answering each interrogatory due to Defendants’ failure to answer the interrogatories and serve any objections they may have had by the deadline for service of their answers under Rule 33.
Rule 33 (b)(3) and (4), provides that the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve objections within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories and any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party’s failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3) and (4)(West 2007).
Plaintiffs further submit that Defendants have waived their right to make any objections to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents by not complying with Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
Rule 34 (b) provides that if a party desires to object to a request for documents, or any part thereof, the objecting party must state the reasons for such objection in its written response within 30 days of service upon that party of such document request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b) (West 2007).
Plaintiffs’ counsel have made clear to Defendants’ counsel their intent to preserve Plaintiffs’ right to object to Defendants’ answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents when and if Defendants finally serve their discovery responses.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 9
8
Rule 37 (a) (4) provides that, “[i]f the motion is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A) (West 2007). Certain limited circumstances are set out in Rule 37 (a)(4)(A) where the Court is authorized to forgo an award of costs and fees to the movant. Id.
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the expenses and attorney’s fees incurred herein as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rules.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs request that their motion to compel discovery be granted. Plaintiffs also request an award of the Court for reasonable attorney fees and costs in bringing this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 9
9
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 9
9:44 AM