Navin v. Hartz et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
PATRICK NAVIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAYNA HARTZ, in her official capacity
as Yupiit School District Superintendent;
Tariq Malik, in his official capacity as
Akiachak School Principal; and YUPIIT
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:20-cv-00007-TMB
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(DKT. 14)
The matter comes before the Court on Defendants Rayna Hartz, Tariq Malik, and the Yupiit
School District’s (collectively the “Defendants”) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (the
“Motion”).1 Defendants move to compel Plaintiff Patrick Navin “to answer the interrogatories and
respond to the requests for production in Defendants’ First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff
propounded July 6, 2021.”2 Plaintiff responds that he “has completed his responses to the
discovery requests at issue,” although he did so only after Defendants filed the Motion.3
Defendants confirm in their Reply that Plaintiff has responded to the at-issue requests.4
1 Dkt. 14 (Motion).
2 Id. at 1.
3 Dkt. 15 (Response).
4 Dkt. 18 (Reply).
Case 4:20-cv-00007-TMB Document 19 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 2

2
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion as moot. Defendants may move for fees and costs
incurred in writing and filing the Motion.5
In addition, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for “an order that the matters
referenced in Request for Admission Nos. 3, 7, 10, and 11 are deemed admitted without
qualification” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 36(a)(3).6 Rule 36 “seeks to serve
two important goals: truth-seeking in litigation and efficiency in dispensing justice.”7 Consistent
with these goals, the Rule “provides a court with discretion to extend the time for responding to
requests for admissions, even after the time to respond has expired.”8 Having considered
Defendants’ position, Plaintiff’s explanation for the approximately two-month delay answering
requests for admission, and the truth-seeking function of discovery, the Court finds it appropriate
to exercise such discretion here.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 13th day of April, 2022.
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Defendants ask the Court “to award them the fees and costs incurred as a result of having to file
the motion to compel discovery responses.” Id. at 2. The Court will not consider this request at
this time as it was raised for the first time in reply and Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to
respond. See Alaska L. Civ. R. 7.1(c).
6 Dkt. 18 at 2; see also Dkt. 14 at n.1.
7 Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007).
8 Scalia v. Sin City Inv. Grp., Inc., No. 219CV361JCMNJK, 2020 WL 3172997, at *3 (D. Nev.
June 15, 2020); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).
Case 4:20-cv-00007-TMB Document 19 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 2