Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv—OOO22-IVIPT Document 71 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 1 014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE )
COMPANY )
)
and )
)
PACK AND PROCESS, INC. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
) Case N0. 05-0022 (KAJ)
MALY YAN )
)
Defendant. )
>|<>l<>l=>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>|<>l<>l<>|<>l<>l<>|<>l<>|<>l<>|<>l<>1<>l<>l<>l<>l<>I<>l<>|<>|<>|<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<
YAN THOU, et. al )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case N0. 05-00513 (KAJ)
)
PACK & PROCESS, INC., et. al. ) CONSOLIDATED CASES
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND OBTAIN SANCTIONS
AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
LOCAL RULE 7.1.1
Plaintiffs in Civil Acti0n N0. 05-0022, St. Paul Mercury Insurance C0mpany and Pack
and Prccess, Inc. ("M0vants"), thrcugh their attcrneys, hereby file this m0ti0n pursuant t0
Federal Rules 0f Civil Pr0cedure 37(a)(2)(B) and 37(a)(4)(A) and L0cal Rule 0f Civil Prccedure
l.3(a) t0 CO1Dp€l disccvery and 0btain sancti0ns against scme, but n0t all, 0f the defendants.
Mevants aver as f0ll0vvs:
1. On Oct0ber 7, 2005, Mcvants served a first set 0finterr0gat0ries and a first
request f0r pr0ducti0n 0f d0cuments up0n each and every defendant. Ccpies 0f these

Case 1:05-cv—OOO22-IVIPT Document 71 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 2 of 4
interrogatories and requests for production are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B". (Since
the discovery served on each defendant is identical, to reduce the paper burden on the Court,
movants are only attaching copies of the discovery served upon one party, Maly Yan) .
2. Service ofthe foregoing discovery was effected in the manner reflected in the
certificate of service included with same. y Exhibit "C".
3. Defendants’ responses were due on or before November 6, 2005.
4. Defendants did not respond or object to the subject discovery within the time
required for responses.
5. By letter dated November 16, 2005, Exhibit "D" hereto, Movants’ counsel
advised defendants’ counsel that their answers to the subject discovery were overdue and asked
them to advise the undersigned when their answers would be served.
6. To date, the only defendants who have responded to the November 16, 2005
request are those represented by the law firm of Kline & Specter. Movants granted those
defendants an extension to December 7, 2005 in which to respond. This motion is not directed to
those defendants because their time to respond, as extended, has not yet expired.
7. Movants’ counsel confirmed the extension for the clients of Kline & Specter on
November 21, 2005 (sg Exhibit "E"), which letter was copied to counsel for the remaining
defendants and which advised them that the extension did not apply to their clients.
8. Although Movants’ counsel has recently traded phone messages with one attorney
for the non-complying defendants, Robert S. Miller, Esquire, there have been no substantive
discussions with him or other defense counsel concerning the overdue answers, leaving Movants
to conclude that they have no intention of complying with their discovery obligations.
2

Case 1:05-cv—OOO22-IVIPT Document 71 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 3 of 4
9. Given the non-responses and failures to seek any extensions, Movants are
compelled to move for an order directing the following defendants — Unchalee Vong; Donkeo
Phravichit; Kusti Leman; Tjaj ah Chandra, as Mother and Legal Guardian of Lani Chandra and
Lani Chandra, in her own right; Zair Shah; Khan Gul; Salim Khan and Mohammed Sardar Khan,
as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Mohammed Azim; Soly Chan, as Administrator of the
Estate of Lang Kehm, deceased a/k/a Lanh Chhay; and Thorn Bun Khem, as Administrator ofthe
Estate of Lam Khem, deceased — to serve full and complete responses to Movants’
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
10. Given the impending January 2006 deadline for joining additional parties,
Movants respectfully request that the aforementioned defendants be ordered to serve full and
complete responses to the subject discovery no later than December 20, 2005.
1 1. In addition, Movants respectfully request that the aforementioned defendants be
sanctioned, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A) in such amounts as the
Court will later determine to be necessary to compensate movants for their reasonable expenses
incurred in making this motion, including attorneys’ fees.
12. Movants are prepared to file a supporting brief should the Court so require.
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1.1
As set forth above, Movants attempted to obtain discovery responses from the defendants
by letters dated November 16, 2005 and November 21, 2005, but only the clients of the law firm
of Kline & Specter cooperated with this effort.
WHEREFORE, for the aforementioned reasons, Movants respectfully request that the
Court issue an order, in the form accompanying this motion, directing that the non—complying
3

Case 1:05-cv—OOO22-IVIPT Document 71 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 4 of 4
defendants serve full and complete responses to Movants’ discovery by December 20, 2005, or
be barred from introducing any evidence at time of trial. Movants further request an award of
sanctions as set forth above.
Dated: December g, 2005 BIFFERATO, GENTILOTT1, BIDEN & BALlCK
Wilmington, DE
l d . I be
Ian Co nor B fferato (#3273)
Josep K. Koury (#4272)
1308 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 2165
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 429-1900
-and-
Francis J. Deasey, Esq.
James W. Burns, Esq.
DEASEY, MAHONEY & BENDER, LTD.
1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1300
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2978
(215) 587-9400
4