Cooper et al v. Pierce Plaza, LLC et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting 23 Motion to Compel discovery; deferring ruling on 23 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff is Ordered to further supplement her discovery responses within 21 days of service of this Order to address each of the deficiencies identified in defendants' supplemental brief. The Clerk is directed to enclose an additional copy of defendants' supplemental briefing (doc 31) for plaintiff's use. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray on 5/13/19. (wwp) Modified on 5/13/2019 (wwp).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
VANESSA COOPER
Plaintiff,
v.
PIERCE PLAZA, LLC, d/b/a
Hampstead Oaks Apts. and
MARTIN H. BAILEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)

CV418-131

)

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Defendants seek to compel discovery responses and for mandatory
fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 & 37, doc. 23, and contend that
plaintiff’s

supplemental

responses

to

their

discovery

remains

meaningfully deficient, doc. 31. That motion is GRANTED in part. 1
Plaintiff is ORDERED to further supplement her discovery responses
within 21 days of service of this Order to address each of the
deficiencies identified in defendants’ supplemental brief.2

Because

Defendants’ motion to compel discovery is GRANTED. Given that plaintiff
attempted to supplement her responses in good faith, albeit deficiently so, defendants’
motion for sanctions is DEFERRED, pending plaintiff’s responses following this
Order. Should plaintiff fail to meaningfully comply, the Court will revisit the issue and
consider an award of fees.
1

2

To that end, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enclose an additional copy of defendants’

plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will endeavor not to punish her
lack of expertise. However, pro se litigants must follow the Court’s Local
Rules and the Rules of Civil Procedure and must abide their discovery
obligations and fully litigate their cases. See, e.g., McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“While their pleadings are to be liberally
construed, pro se plaintiffs are not excused from complying with
procedural rules.”); Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.
2007) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed, but pro se litigants
nonetheless must conform to procedural rules); Moon v. Newsome, 863
F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant
law and rules of the court, including the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.”).
Plaintiff must answer defendants’ discovery requests as thoroughly
as she can. If she does not understand a query or cannot respond to it,
she may so state. But she must try. Finally, to the extent that she has
no further information or cannot remember, she must say so as well. Her
supplementary responses must identify any expert she intends to retain

supplemental briefing (doc. 31) for plaintiff’s use.
2

and their anticipated facts or opinions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), as well
as detailed responses to defendants’ interrogatories that seek to flesh out
plaintiff’s evidence and allegations.

Litigants must support their

allegations, and to the extent plaintiff can identify her medical providers,
employment history, other relevant insurance claims/lawsuits, relevant
arrests, and residences to support her allegations, she must.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of May, 2019.
______________________________
________________________
_
_
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY
HRISTOPHER
ST H R
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3