Aiken v. Castro

Opinion

FtLED 2020 JUL—I .II:O9

SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

MORGAN AIKEN III, Superior Court Case No. CV0084-19 Plaintiff, vs. DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COM]EL CATHERINE M.R. CASTRO and EDWARD CASTRO,

Defendants.

This matter came before the Court on Defendants Catherine M.R. Castro and Edward

Castro’s Motion to Compel. Plaintiff Morgan Ailcen III filed a “Submission” in response to the

Castros’ Motion, but not an Opposition. Submission (Apr. 24, 2020). Having considered the

parties’ arguments, filings, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Castros’ Motion.

Under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l), “[plarties may obtain discovery regarding

any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other

tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable

matter.” Required disclosures include the identity and location of persons a disclosing party may

use to support its claims or defenses knowledge of a party’s claims and defenses. GRCP

26(a)(l)(A). They also include “a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all

documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control

of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses... .“ GRCP

I I I £ . t. . . CV0084-19 . DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL . Page 2

26(a)(l)(B). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a

failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” GRCP 37(a)(3).

The Castros ask the Court to compel Aiken to fully and completely respond to their First

Set of Interrogatories. Mot. Compel (Apr. 20, 2020). Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 request Aiken’s

address and his employer’s address, respectively. Deci. Counsel, Ex. 2 (Apr. 20, 2020).

Intenogatories Nos. 3 through 7 expressly request information and evidence supporting Aiken’s

claims and defenses. Id. Ailcen justified giving incomplete responses due to “security reasons”

and because “[t]he information requested is already provided in Plaintiff’s complaint.”

Submission at 1.

Finding that the Castros ask for discoverable information and that Aiken’s failure to

respond appropriately is not justified, the Court GRANTS their Motion and ORDERS Aiken to

disclose to the Castros the information requested in Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 7 fully and

completely by July 7, 2020, the day prior to the Pretrial Conference.’ If Aiken fails to disclose

the requested information, the Court may consider ordering that he cannot use as evidence at trial

any witness or information he does not disclose, among other sanctions. GRCP 37(c)(1).

Because the Court grants the Castros’ motion, the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure

mandate that Ailcen pay the Castros’ attorney costs and fees “unless the court finds that the

motion was filed without the movant’s first making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or

discovery without court action, or that the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection

was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”

GRCP 37(a)(4)(A); see also CVR 37.1(a). The Supreme Court of the United States recognized

1 The Court declines to address Aiken’s argument that responding to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 poses a security risk because he provides no explanation or legal precedent to support his argument. . . CVOO84-19 . DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL . Page 3

“substantially justified” within the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) and the

Equal Access to Justice Act to be “satisfied if there is a ‘genuine dispute,’...or ‘if reasonable

people could differ as to [the appropriateness of the contested action]...” Fierce v. Underwood,

487 U.S. 552, 108 (1988) (internal citations omitted). Finally, a litigant’s pro se status does not

absolve him from sanctions under Rule 37(a)(4). Holder v. Gienapp, No. CIV 06-CV-221-JD,

2007 WL 1726575, at *1 (D.N.H. June 13, 2007).

Having reviewed the Castros’ counsel’s declaration of non-cooperation and the letter she

sent to Aiken following his reponse to the Interrogatories, the Court finds that the Castros made a

good faith effort to obtain discovery without court action. Aiken’s response to the Interrogatories

was incomplete, lacked justification, and Aiken’s “Submission” fails to argue that an award of

expenses would be unjust. Accordingly, the Castros’ request for attorney fees and costs is

GRANTED.

In conclusion, the Court GRANTS the Castros’ Motion to Compel and ORDERS Aiken

to respond to their Interrogatoñes by July 7, 2020. The Castros may file a statement of attorney

costs and fees no later than 14 days of this Order.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of July 2020. C

HO?. ELYZE M. IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Appearing Parties: Morgan Aiken III, pro se Minakshi V. Hemlani, Law Offices of Minakshi V. Hemlani, P.C., for Defendants Catherine M.R. Castro and Edward Castro .