1

2
3
4
5

DCRR
JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1876
HANSEN RASMUSSEN, LLC
1835 Village Center Circle
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
(702) 385-5533
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DISTRICT COURT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

7
8
9

JONATHAN FRIEDRICH, as Trustee of the

JONATHAN FRIEDRICH REVOCABLE
TRUST,

v.

12

RANCHO BEL AIR PROPERTY OWNERS

ASSOCIATION UNIT 2; PERFORMANCE
CAM, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

1835 Village Center Circle

Las Vega s, Neva da
89134
Te l e p h o n e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 5 - 5 5 3 3
Fa c s i m i l e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 2 - 8 8 9 1

LAW OFFICES

11

13

Defendants

14
15

DISCOVERY COMMISSIONERS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16
17
18
19

HEARING DATE:

HEARING TIME:

1:30 P.M.

Plaintiff:

JONATHAN FRIEDRICH, in person, as trustee of the JONATHAN

FRIEDRICH REVOCABLE TRUST, by and through his attorney, Joel F.
Hansen, Esq. of HANSEN RASMUSSEN, LLC.

Defendant:

RANCHO BEL AIR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION UNIT 2, and

PERFORMANCE CAM, LLC, by and through their attorney, Carolyn M.
Broussard, Esq., of UPSON SMITH

22

I.

23

FINDINGS

24
25

May 9, 2016

APPEARANCES:

20
21

A-14-711287-C
XIX

Plaintiff,

10
H AN SE N R A SM U SS EN ,
LLC

CASE NO.
DEPT. NO.

This matter was on calendar for Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Motion to Compel

26
27
28

Proper Responses to Requests for Admissions and for Sanctions for Failure To Obey the Order of the
Commissioner.
-1-

1
2

In his order of February 23, 2016 granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, the

Discovery Commissioner found that there was no excuse or justification for the dilatory and evasive

responses of the Defendants, and that the Defendants, have engaged in sandbagging of the Plaintiff[s]

by giving evasive responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests and/or by claiming that Defendants did

6
7
8

setting forth proper evidence, reasons, or justification for such responses, and/or by objecting that a
discovery request or interrogatory was vague and ambiguous, when it was in fact very clear. . . .

10

Plaintiffs present Motion was made and based upon the fact that although the Defendants were

11

ordered to present proper responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions and Requests to Produce, all

12

that Defendants did regarding the Requests for Admissions was to submit 8 amended responses out of

1835 Village Center Circle

Las Vega s, Neva da
89134
Te l e p h o n e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 5 - 5 5 3 3
Fa c s i m i l e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 2 - 8 8 9 1

LAW OFFICES

H AN SE N R A SM U SS EN ,
LLC

not have such documents, and/or that Defendants had never received such document--all without

13
14

20, all of which violated the Commissioners Order, and the other 12 were not amended, in spite of the
fact that most of them violated the Commissioners order as well. In addition, Defendants have never

15
16
17

produced their insurance policy as requested by Plaintiffs.

After Mr. Hansens complaints to Defendants about these deficiencies in 2.34 conferences,

18

emails, and phone calls, an associate of Mr. Pengillys firm departed, and Mr. Pengilly assumed

19

responsibility for the case. Mr. Hansen represented that Mr. Pengilly had, by the time of the hearing on

20

this Motion, presented acceptable responses to everything requested except the insurance policy which

21
22
23
24

had been the subject of a request to produce months ago. Mr. Hansen had spoken with Mr. Pengilly on
the morning of the Motion, and Mr. Pengilly agreed to produce that policy as soon as he could procure
it from the insurance company. The Commissioner expressed appreciation for Mr. Pengillys

25

involvement in this matter as it went a long way to resolving it. However, Mr. Hansen indicated that

26

his client has incurred over $21,000 in fees attempting to force Defendants to comply with the rules of

27

discovery.

28
-2-

1
2

Commissioner finds there are and have been very clear orders in place in this case, but the

responses provided initially were insufficient and inadequate, at best, and that Defendants abused the

discovery process, which is why those prior orders were entered the way they were.

5
6
7
8

Commissioner notes that based on the failures on Defendants part to properly respond to
discovery, the Commissioner had even considered striking Defendants Answer to the Complaint.
Nevertheless, Commissioner recommends as follows:
II.

RECOMMENDATIONS

11

1835 Village Center Circle

Las Vega s, Neva da
89134
Te l e p h o n e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 5 - 5 5 3 3
Fa c s i m i l e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 2 - 8 8 9 1

LAW OFFICES

H AN SE N R A SM U SS EN ,
LLC

10

12
13
14

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED by the Discovery Commissioner that the Defendants be

Sanctioned $5,000.00 in attorneys fees for Plaintiff having to bring this motion. Payment is due on or
before June 8, 2016, to be paid to Mr. Friedrich in care of Mr. Hansen.

15

The Discovery Commissioner, having met with counsel for the parties, having discussed the
issues noted above and having reviewed any materials proposed in support thereof, hereby submits the

16

above recommendations.

17

DATED this ____ day of ___________________, 2016.

____________________________________
DISCOVERY COMMISSIONER

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Submitted by:
HANSEN RASMUSSEN, LLC

Approved as to Form and Content:

JAMES PENGILLY LAW FIRM

___________________________
JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
1835 Village Center Circle,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorney for Plaintiffs

_____________________________
JAMES W. PENGILLY, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
1995 Village Center Circle,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Attorney for Defendants

25
26
27
28
-3-

NOTICE

1
2
3

Pursuant to NRCP 16.1(d)(2), you are hereby notified you have five (5) days from the date you receive
this document within which to file written objections.

[Pursuant to E.D.C.R. 2.34(f) an objection must be filed and served no more than five (5) days after
receipt of the Discovery Commissioners Report. The Commissioners Report is deemed received
when signed and dated by a party, his attorney or his attorneys employee, or three (3) days after
mailing to a party or his attorney, or three (3) days after the clerk of the court deposits a copy of the
Report in a folder of a partys lawyer in the Clerks office. See E.D.C.R. 2.34(F)]

A copy of the foregoing Discovery Commissioners Report was:

____

Mailed to Plaintiff / Defendant at the following address on the ___day of ___________, 2016.

____

Placed in the folder at Plaintiffs / Defendants counsel in the Clerks office on the ____day of

____________, 2016.

STEVEN D. GRIERSON

11

1835 Village Center Circle

Las Vega s, Neva da
89134
Te l e p h o n e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 5 - 5 5 3 3
Fa c s i m i l e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 2 - 8 8 9 1

LAW OFFICES

H AN SE N R A SM U SS EN ,
LLC

10

12

BY:

_______________________________
Deputy Clerk

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

CASE NAME: Friedrich v. Rancho Bel Air

CASE NUMBER: A-14-711287-C

1
2
ORDER

3
4

The Court, having reviewed the above report and recommendations prepared by the Discovery
Commissioner, and,

____

The parties having waived the right to object thereto,

____

No timely objection having been received in the office of the Discovery Commissioner pursuant
to E.D.C.R. 2.34(f)

____

Having receiving the objections thereto and the written arguments in support of said objections,
and good cause appearing,

7
8
9

***

11

1835 Village Center Circle

Las Vega s, Neva da
89134
Te l e p h o n e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 5 - 5 5 3 3
Fa c s i m i l e : ( 7 0 2 ) 3 8 2 - 8 8 9 1

LAW OFFICES

H AN SE N R A SM U SS EN ,
LLC

10

AND
____

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Discovery Commissioners Report and Recommendations are

affirmed and adopted.

____

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Discovery Commissioners Report and Recommendations are

affirmed and adopted as modified in the following manner (attached hereto).

____

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the Discovery Commissioners Report is set for
____ day of __________, 2016.

12
13
14
15
16
17

DATED this ____ day of __________, 2016.

_____________________________________
DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-