Camacho v. Reyes

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: July 13, 2014
• Docket: CV0625-11
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

D !=II SUPER!Cli COURT ' ' ' '~- \~!:. r '·~

201~ !l.AR 25 PN lJ: I 0 2

3 CLEFi 1< BY: ____ (4l ___COURT _ 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 FRANCISCO JUNIOR TENORIO ) Civil Case no. CV0625-II CAMACHO, eta!., ) 7 ) Plaintiffs, ) 8 DECISION AND ORDER ) vs. 9 ) VINCENT REYES, et a!., ) 10 ) Defendants. ) II ) 12 ____________) 13 This matter is before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of 14

15 the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, Defendant Vincent Reyes' Motion to Compel

16 Discovery and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer Counterclaim and Third Party 17 Complaint were taken under advisement by the Court on March 25, 2014. Plaintiffs are 18 represented by attorney Kristan K. Finney. Defendant Vincent Reyes (hereafter defendant) is 19 represented by attorney Louie J. Yanza. Defendant Smithbridge Guam, Inc. is represented by 20

21 attorney Thomas M. Tarpley. After having carefully considered, received, and reviewed the

22 arguments papers, and the file herein the Court hereby issues this decision and order denying 23 Defendant Reyes' requests. 24 BACKGROUND 25 This case arises out of Plaintiffs' April 6, 20 II, Complaint for damages. In it Plaintiffs 26 complain of acts negligence which caused the death of Victoria Camacho on July 27,2010 after 27

28 she was struck by a dump truck. On February 17, 2014 Defendant filed two papers. The first was entitled Motion for 2 Leave to File First Amended Answer; Cross-Claim; and Third Party Complaint. The Second 3 was entitled Motion to Compel Discovery. The first of these papers was not accompanied by a 4 memorandum of points and authorities. In his second paper Defendant's memorandum 5

6 requests that Plaintiffs be ordered to produce certain discovery documents. As a sanction for

7 failing to produce them, Defendant requests that Plaintiffs be ordered to pay his reasonable 8 attorney fees or that Plaintiffs' claims be stricken. In support of his request Defendant cites to 9 Rule 37 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure and several cases from other jurisdictions 10 interpreting similar rules. He asserts that on December 27, 2013 he made specific requests for II

12 the production of documents regarding Plaintiffs expert witness, Michael Aguon. He also

13 asserts that on January 31, 2014 and February 6, 2014, he sent a letters to Plaintiffs' counsel to 14 inquire whether the documents would be produced and requesting that they meet and confer 15 about the production of the documents. 16 On March 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendant's request to compel 17

18 and sanction. In their opposition Plaintiffs assert that they responded to Defendant's December

19 27, 2013, second request for productions of documents on February 19, 2014. Having 20 responded to Defendant's request the Plaintiffs argue the issue is moot. 21 Defendant did not file a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition papers. 22 DISCUSSION 23

24 I.

25 Rule 7 .I (c)(2) of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam require that all motion

26 requests made to the Court be accompanied by "a memorandum in support thereof containing 27 the points and authorities upon which the moving party relies, including citations." Absent this 28 the Court is unable to consider or grant the request. In this case Defendant failed to submit a

Page 2 of3 memorandum to support his Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer; Cross-Claim; 2 and Third Party Complaint. Accordingly the Court is unable to consider it. 3 II. 4 Rules 37 and 37.1 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the 5

6 Superior Court of Guam govern the filing and disposition of discovery disputes. GRCP 37,

7 Super. Ct. Guam R. 37.1. The court's local rules proscribe orders compelling discovery unless 8 the moving party has attempted in good faith to meet and eliminate the necessity for a hearing. 9 !d. at 37.l(a). The rule places a duty upon the movant to arrange the meeting and that it be 10 within a reasonable time. !d. II

12 While it is possible that there are sufficient facts to support the relief requested,

13 Defendant's motion neither cites to nor analyzes how his requests and letters fall with the 14 mandates of the Guam rules. Absent this the Court is unable to grant the relief requested. 15 Furthermore the facts asserted in the Parties' papers and Defendant's failure to reply to 16 Plaintiffs assertions, cause the Court to conclude this matter has been resolved. 17

18. CONCLUSION

19 For the above reasons Defendant's motions are DENIED. 20

22 SO ORDERED, this~ay of--1'~----'"---....l.---' 2014. 23

Page 3 of3