Gutherie v. Board of Trustees of GGRF

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 18, 2022
• Docket: SP0094-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

F! L E D SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 1 2022J1N 18 PH 2: h I 2 swan or cougar 3

4 I 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 TAKAKO B. GUTHRIE AND JOSEPH A. g SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS no. SP0094-20 8 GUTHRIE ET AL, AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER RE: Petitioners/Plaintiffs, MOTION TO QUASH DISCOVERY g ) 10 v.

11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE i GOVERNMENT OF GUAM 12 RETIREMENT FUND, 13 Respondents/Defendants.

15 This matter came before the court upon the Government of Guam Retirement Fund 16 motion to Quash discovery served on behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs Takako B. Guthrie and 17 Joseph A. Guthrie. The Court entered the decision and order in this matter prematurely 18 because the courtinterpretedthe Motion filed by GGRF as an ex-parte hearing. The notice of 19

20 Motion states:

21 Please Take Notice that on October 19, 2021 or as soon thereafter that the matter may be heard, at the Guam Judicial Center, San Ramon Hagatna, 22 Respondent/Defendant Government of Guam Retirement Fund("Fund") by and through 23 its undersigned attorneys, will move this Court for a protective order and or an order quashing the Amended First Set of intenogatories... 24

25 The Court misinterpreted the motion as an ex parte motion because the date of the

26 notice of hearing was the same as the date the motion was filed October 19,2021. The court did

27 not lead of the motion until October 21,2021 which was after the date for the hearing which 28 was assumed to be October 19, 2021. As a result the court issued the decision and order on 1 October 28 2021. Upon reviewing the documents more carefully it appears that CVR 7.1 Font

2 1 the motion may not have been intended as an ex parte motion. Therefore the Petitioners were

3 not given an opportunity to respond. In the recent case of Guam Police Department Major Fred

4 M Chargualaf v. Government of Guam Retirement Fund 2021 Guam 17 1] 31 the Supreme 5 Court of Guam Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(E)(xx) provides that proceedings for 6 writs are exempt firm initial discovery requirements 'aimless otherwise ordered by the court" 7

8 Rule 26 provides that the scope of discovery includes "any matter , not privileged , that is

9 relevant to the claim or defense of any party " but can be limited by the court if the burden or

10 expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit". 11 Keeping in mind the requirements of Rule 26, and the Supreme Court decision cited 12

13 above, the Petitioners may file a response to the motion to quash showing the need for

14 discovery in this case by the close of business Tuesday January 26 2022 and the Retirement

15 fund may tile a response by January 31, 2022. The issue of discovery will be addressed at the 16 hearing of February 4, 2021 17 It is so Ordered January 18, 2022 18

19 -J G F IT Z PAT RICK 20 Judge Pro Tempore Superior Court of Guam 21