MINOR CHILD v. MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Compel. Ordered by U.S. District Judge CLAY D LAND on 10/10/2014. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
J.C., a minor, by and through
her parent, LEONTYNATE CAREY,

*
*

Plaintiff,
*
vs.

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-468 (CDL)
*

MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
et al.,
Defendants.

*
*

O R D E R
Defendants served interrogatories, document requests, and a
deposition notice on Plaintiff Leontynate Carey.

Carey did not

produce any documents in response to the document requests, and
although she appeared for a deposition, she refused to answer
questions.
and

Carey also failed to respond to some interrogatories

provided

incomplete

answers

to

the

rest.

Defendants

attempted to confer in good faith with Carey, but she did not
provide the requested discovery responses, so Defendants filed a
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 22).
Carey did not respond to Defendants’ Motion to Compel, and
she did not offer any reason for her failure to respond to the
discovery

requests.

appointment of counsel,

Instead,

Carey

filed

a

motion

for

explaining that she did not wish to

proceed without an attorney.

That motion was denied.

Order

Den. Mot. for Appointment of Counsel Sept. 26, 2014, ECF No. 24.

If Carey wants to proceed in this action, Carey must comply
with

her

discovery

obligations.

Carey

shall

respond

to

Defendant’s interrogatories and document requests by October 31,
2014.

Carey shall submit to a deposition by November 21, 2014.

If Carey fails to comply with this Order, this action will be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $543.66 based on
Carey’s failure to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.
It is not clear from Defendants’ briefs

whether this amount

represents the cost of the unfinished deposition or the cost of
bringing

the

reference
reply

Motion

Federal

brief,

to

Rule

suggesting

Compel.

of

Civil

that

On

Procedure

they

bringing the Motion to Compel.

one

are

hand,

Defendants

37(a)(5)

seeking

in

the

their

costs

of

On the other hand, Defendants

state that the sanctions they seek represent deposition costs
and attorney’s fees.
If

Defendants

are

seeking

the

cost

of

the

unfinished

deposition, such a sanction is authorized but not required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) (stating that the Court
may order sanctions if a party “fails, after being served with
proper notice, to appear for that person’s deposition”).
Court declines to order this sanction at this time.
Defendants
Compel,

are

“the

seeking

court

the

must,

cost

after

2

of

bringing

giving

an

the

The

But if

Motion

opportunity

to

to
be

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated
the

motion

.

.

.

to

pay

the

movant’s

reasonable

expenses

incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added).

Fed.

The present record

does not clearly reflect the amount of expenses incurred in
bringing the Motion to Compel, and it provides no evidence from
which

the

reasonable.

Court

can

determine

whether

those

expenses

were

So the Court cannot award sanctions based on Rule

37(a)(5)(A) at this time but may reconsider this decision if
Defendants

file

documentation.

a

motion

for

sanctions

with

supporting

Carey, of course, will have an opportunity to

respond to any motion for sanctions and explain why such an
award would be unjust.
In summary, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is granted, and
Defendants’

request

for

sanctions

is

denied.

Carey

shall

respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and document requests by
October

31,

2014.

November 21, 2014.
this

action

will

Carey

shall

submit

to

a

deposition

by

If Carey fails to comply with this Order,
be

dismissed

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v).

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of October, 2014.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3