Santiago v. Santiago

Opinion

jrrcv uF 1 - 9: q9

3 CLERK OFURT

4 B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 CARMELA CABRERA SANTIAGO, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0632-17 6 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: $ v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ) DISCOVERY VILMORE FORBES SANTIAGO, ) 10 DEFENDANT. ) 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on Defendant Vilmore Forbes 14 Santiago (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Discovery. Attorney Anthony R. Camacho represents 15 the Defendant. Attorney John C. Terlaje represents the Plaintiff Carmela Cabrera Santiago 16 (“Plaintiff’). On November 30, 2018, without oral argument, the Court took the matter under 17 advisement pursuant to CVR 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having 18 reviewed the record and relevant law, the Court now issues this Decision and Order DENYING 19 the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery. 20 BACKGROUND 21 This matter arises out of a complaint for divorce. In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks a 22 divorce on the grounds of adultery and irreconcilable differences. (Complaint, Dec. 5, 2017). 23 Defendant filed a counterclaim for divorce alleging extreme cruelty or irreconcilable differences. 24 (Def.’s Answer and Counterclaim, Dec. 26, 2017). Pursuant to the scheduling conference, all 25 discovery must be exchanged by July 31, 2018. (Stipulated CVR 16.1 Form 2, May 23, 2018). 26 Defendant claims on or about May 13, 2018, he served his First Revised Request for 27 Production of Documents on the Plaintiff. Defendant also claims the deadline for the Plaintiff to 28

Carmela Cabrera Santiago v. Vitmore Forbes Santiago; DM0632-17 D&O Re: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Page 1 of 3 Q . 1 respond to the request for production of documents expired on June 12, 2018. However, up to

2 August 14, 2018 (or the filing of the motion), the Plaintiff did not respond or provide any

3 documents or objections to such requests. Although the Plaintiff referred to an “Exhibit A” in the

4 instant motion, he did not submit exhibits or any documents relating to the said request for

5 production of documents, nor were any related exhibits submitted subsequently to this Court. On

6 August 14, 2018, Defendant then moved to compel the Plaintiff to respond to its First Request

7 for Production of Documents. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the instant motion.

8 DISCUSSION

9 Defendant’s Motion seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to the Defendant’s

10 First Request for Production of Documents pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B) of the Guam Rules of

11 Civil Procedure ( “GRCP”).

12 Courts widely recognized that under Rule 26 a party “may obtain discovery regarding any

13 matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” See Guam R. Civ. P.

14 26(b)(1). See also Fed. Civ. P. 26. Guam’s rules are identical to the Federal Rules of Civil

15 Procedure, and “therefore the Court looks to cases which interpret and apply the principles of

16 federal rules for guidance.” Benavente v. Taitano, 2006 Guam 15, ¶ 4$. Under both Guam and

17 Federal rules, a requesting party may move for an order compelling inspection of documents if

18 the opposing party does not respond to such a request submitted under Rule 34. See Guam R.

19 Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that the information it

20 seeks is relevant and that the responding party’s objections lack merit.1 The party must, therefore,

21 “inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for

22 each disputed response, (1) why the information sought is relevant and (2) why the responding

23 party’s objections are not meritorious.”2

26 1 Hancock v. Aetna Ltfe Ins. Co., 321 F.R.D. 383, 390 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (citing Bluestone Innovations LLC V. LG Elecs., Inc., No. C-13-01770-SI (EDL), 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)). 2 2 Id. (quoting Adams v. Yates, No. l:l0-cv-0671-AWI-MJS, 2013 WL 5924983, at *1 (ED. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013)). 28 Carmela Cabrera Santiago v. Vilmore Forbes Santiago; DM063217 D&O Re: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Page 2 of 3 1 Contrary to his assertion, the Defendant’s motion failed to include the First Revised

2 Request for Production of Documents. Further, the Defendant’s instant motion does not explain

3 what and how these documents are relevant to his counterclaims or defense. Instead, Defendant

4 argues vaguely that the Plaintiff’s failure to respond within thirty (30) days to his request to

5 produce documents suffices to warrant an order to compel under GRCP Rule 37. The Court

6 disagrees. Absent even a sliver of support showing how these requested documents are relevant,

7 the Court finds an order compelling discovery is inappropriate. Hancock, 321 F.R.D. at 390.

$ Based on the Court’s ruling on the instant Motion to Compel Discovery, the Court need not

9 address the Defendant’s Motion to Enlarge Time pursuant to GRCP Rule 6.

10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to

12 Compel Discovery.

13 SO ORDERED this 0 1 2019

HON LE MARIA T. CENZN 18 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 19 20

acknow’edge that a copy of the 24 jamal hereto was placed in the

26 aate:Z/1/ime: /2f.44

27 Cep!v Chik, Superior Court of Guam

2$ Carmela Cabrera Santiago v. Vitmore Forbes Santiago; DM0632-17 D&O Re: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Page 3 of 3