National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Company, et al

Filing 64

ORDER granting 58 Motion to Compel Defendant Jeffrey M. Wagner to Produce Documents and Respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatories. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/14/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00926-LTB-KLM
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, as Subrogee
and Assignee for The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
JOHN D. WAGNER,
JEFFREY M. WAGNER, and
KRISTIE WAGNER,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Jeffrey
M. Wagner to Produce Documents and Respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [#58]
(the “Motion”). Defendant Jeffrey Wagner, who proceeds in this matter as a pro se litigant,
has not filed a Response, and the time in which to do so, as permitted by D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1(d), has now passed. See Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating
that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants).
Plaintiff asserts that, despite multiple attempts at contacting Defendant Jeffrey
Wagner, he has failed to respond to written discovery and failed to confer or otherwise
communicate with Plaintiff regarding his discovery obligations. See Exs. D & E [#58] at 3136 (providing copies of written correspondence to Defendant Jeffrey Wagner). Plaintiff

-1-

states that Defendant Jeffrey Wagner’s responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories,
Ex. A [#58] at 6-18, were due not later than March 25, 2014, and that his responses to
Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Ex. B [#58] at 19-28, were
due the same day. Prior to the March 25, 2014 deadline, Plaintiff had withdrawn some of
its initial discovery requests but had clearly identified those requests for which it still sought
responses. See Ex. C [#58] at 29-30; see also Ex. F [#58] at 37-39.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), “[o]n notice to other parties and all affected
persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion
must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to
confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain
it without court action.” As relevant here, “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an
order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be
made if . . . (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a
party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as
requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#58] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 12, 2014, Defendant Jeffrey
Wagner shall produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of
Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. See Ex. B [#58] at 19-28; Ex.
C [#58] at 29-30.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 12, 2014, Defendant Jeffrey
Wagner shall respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 of
Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. See Ex. A [#58] at 6-18; Ex. C [#58] at 29-30.
Defendant Jeffrey Wagner is warned that failure to comply with this Order and
to participate in this lawsuit in the future will result in the imposition of sanctions.

Dated: May 14, 2014

-3-