Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc.

Motion and requested relief

Juan Murudumbay moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) and 37(b) for sanctions against defendants 29 Street Stone Inc., Rafael Gavartin, ABC Companies 1-10, and their counsel. The court denied the motion.

Court's analysis

Rule 26(g)(1) requires an attorney to sign discovery disclosures, requests, responses, and objections and to certify, after a reasonable inquiry, that the material complies with the rules and is complete and correct when made. Rule 26(g)(3) authorizes sanctions for improper certifications. Rule 37(b) authorizes sanctions for failing to comply with a court order.

Murudumbay challenged the defendants' responses to requests for admission. The court explained that if the defendants denied a matter and Murudumbay later proved that the matter was true, the possible remedy would be reasonable expenses under Rule 37(c)(2). But the court found that Murudumbay had not shown that the defendants made an improper certification, and the responses did not violate a court order.

Regarding requests for production, the court noted that Murudumbay had not provided the responses to the court. The defendants stated that they had no responsive documents. The court cited the rule that a party is not required to produce documents it does not possess or cannot obtain. It stated that Murudumbay could renew the motion if it later became clear that the defendants failed to produce documents within their custody, possession, or control, or failed to conduct a reasonably diligent search. On the record before it, however, he had not shown a violation or entitlement to relief.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for sanctions. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 54.