Myers-Ledesma v. Adams Central Community Schools Board of Trustees et al

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 16 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by Defendants Adams Central Community Schools Board of Trustees, Dr Lori Stiglitz. Plaintiff Deanna My ers-Ledesma ORDERED to produce all documents responsive to Defendants' First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff (DE 16 - 1 at 2-11) and to answer Defendants Adams Central Community Schools Board of Trustees and Dr Lori Stiglitz's respective First Request for Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16 - 1 at 12-38) by 9/28/2017.Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 9/14/17. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DEANNA MYERS-LEDESMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAMS CENTRAL COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 1:16-cv-00298-TLS-SLC
)
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion to compel filed on August 23, 2017, by Defendants Adams
Central Community Schools Board of Trustees (“ACCS”), Dr. Lori Stiglitz, and Jason
Witzigreuter (together, “Defendants”), seeking to compel Plaintiff Deanna Myers-Ledesma to
respond to: (1) Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 2-11); Stiglitz’s
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 12-24); and ACCS’s First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 25-38). Myers-Ledesma has not filed a response to the
motion, and the time to do so has now passed. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(A). For the following
reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel will be GRANTED.
A. Procedural Background
On July 11, 2016, Myers-Ledesma filed this suit in Adams County Superior Court against
ACCS, her former employer; Stiglitz, ACCS’s superintendent; and Witzigreuter, a principal at
one of ACCS’s schools, advancing claims of retaliatory discharge, age discrimination, disability
discrimination, deprivation of due process, conversion, unpaid wages, and breach of contract.
(DE 4). Defendants timely removed the case to this Court. (DE 1).
This Court conducted a scheduling conference on November 8, 2016, setting a discovery

deadline of November 1, 2017, which was later extended to December 1, 2017, for discovery
pertaining to liability, and February 1, 2018, for discovery pertaining to experts and damages.
(DE 12; DE 15). On February 27, 2017, Defendants served their First Request for Production to
Plaintiff, and Stiglitz and ACCS each served their respective First Set of Interrogatories to
Plaintiff. (DE 16 ¶ 1; DE 16-1). After Myers-Ledesma failed to timely respond, Defendants’
counsel emailed Myers-Ledesma’s counsel on May 8, June 1, July 7, and July 14, each time
inquiring about the status of the discovery responses. (DE 16 ¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 7). Although MyersLedesma’s counsel repeatedly indicated that the discovery responses were forthcoming, the
responses were never produced. (DE 16 ¶ 8). Consequently, on August 23, 2017, Defendants
filed the instant motion to compel. (DE 16). As stated earlier, Myers-Ledesma has not responded
to the motion, and her time to do so has now passed.
B. Applicable Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party is permitted to file a motion to compel
discovery where another party fails to respond to interrogatories or requests for production of
documents. See Redmond v. Leatherwood, No. 06-C-1242, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (E.D. Wis.
Jan. 29, 2009). Together with the motion to compel, a party must file “a separate certification
that the party has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with the other affected parties in
an effort to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court action.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “A motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a) is addressed
to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Redmond, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (citation omitted).
C. Discussion
Defendants’ counsel has adequately attempted to confer in good faith with Myers-

2

Ledesma’s counsel in an effort to resolve this matter without Court action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1); N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a). Although Myers-Ledesma’s counsel repeatedly indicated that
the discovery responses were forthcoming, ultimately Myers-Ledesma seems to have simply
ignored Defendants’ discovery requests and the instant motion to compel. Consequently, the
Court will GRANT the motion to compel and order Myers-Ledesma to respond to Defendants’
First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 2-11) and to answer Stiglitz’s
and ACCS’s respective First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 12-38), on or before
September 28, 2017. See, e.g., Redmond, 2009 WL 212974, at *1, 3 (granting plaintiff’s motion
to compel where defendants appeared to have “entirely ignored the plaintiff’s discovery
requests”).
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel (DE 16) is GRANTED. MyersLedesma is ORDERED to produce all documents responsive to Defendants’ First Request for
Production of Documents to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 2-11) and to answer Stiglitz’s and ACCS’s
respective First Request for Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 12-38), on or before
September 28, 2017.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 14th day of September 2017.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge

3