Rice v. Luken Communications LLC et al
ORDER granting pltf's 40 Motion to Compel; denying deft's 41 Motion for Extension of Time; directing deft to supplement its answers to interrogatory Nos. 19 and 20 within 14 days from the entry of this Order, and also submit a second set of answers to interrogatories with the general objections deleted. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 3/20/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
M. RANDY RICE, as Chapter 7 Trustee
No. 4:11CV00386 JLH
LUKEN COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
On January 24, 2012, the Trustee filed a motion to compel answers to discovery requests to
which answers had not been forthcoming within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. On February 27, 2012, the defendant filed a motion for extension of time to respond to
the interrogatories and requests for production. In that motion, the defendant stated that it would
produce answers and responses by Monday, March 5, 2012. The Trustee has replied, pointing out
that the responses include some objections and noting that the objections were waived because the
discovery responses were not timely. The Trustee has attached the defendant’s objections and
responses to the Trustee’s first set of interrogatories.
The Trustee is correct that objections to discovery responses are waived if not asserted within
the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The objections and responses to the first
set of interrogatories include eleven general objections, all of which are stricken. The specific
answers to interrogatories include objections to interrogatory Nos. 19 and 20. The Court orders the
defendant to supplement its answers to interrogatory Nos. 19 and 20 within fourteen days from the
entry of this Order. The defendant also must submit a second set of answers to interrogatories with
the general objections deleted. Any answer in response to which information was withheld based on
one of the general objections must be supplemented.
The motion to compel is granted. Document #40. The motion for an extension of time is
denied. Document #41.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th of March, 2012.
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE