Grimes v. Gary Community School Corporation et al

Filing 42

OPINION AND ORDER granting 36 Motion to Compel Discovery Response From Defendant City of Gary and DIRECTING the City of Gary to provide a response within 14 days; denying AS MOOT 34 Motion to Compel; striking 35 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 7/18/14. (mc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DARA M. GRIMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORP.,
CITY OF GARY, D. GOSHAY, and
A. BRADSHAW,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-36

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Order to Compel Discovery Response
From Defendant Gary Community School Corporation [DE 34 and re-filed as DE 35] and the
Motion to Compel Discovery Response From Defendant City of Gary [DE 36] filed by the
plaintiff, Dara M. Grimes, on April 15, 2014.
Because the motion filed as DE 35 is identical to DE 34 except that it does not include
the attached exhibits, the court STRIKES DE 35.
After Grimes filed her motion to compel, Gary Community School Corporation served its
response to the discovery request at issue. For this reason, the Motion for Order to Compel
Discovery Response From Defendant Gary Community School Corporation [DE 34] is DENIED
AS MOOT.
In her reply brief, Grimes asks the court to award sanctions against Gary Community
School Corporation for its delay in responding to the discovery request. However, Grimes did
not request sanctions in her original motion and cannot request them for the first time in her
reply. Additionally, the court does not find that the short delay was the type of bad faith conduct

deserving of sanctions. This is particularly true because Gary Community School Corporation
had advised Grimes that a short extension would be necessary. Moreover, Grimes had requested
an award of attorney’s fees in the amount accrued preparing the motion to compel. Grimes’
motion to compel and its supporting memorandum were one page each, and the costs incurred as
a result of the short delay were minimal at best.
Grimes also moved to compel the defendant City of Gary to respond to a discovery
request. The discovery request served on the City of Gary was identical to that served on the
Gary Community School Corporation. Both sought:
A complete affidavit with a copy of any and all employee and personnel records,
including but not limited to, memoranda, rate of pay, applications, job
descriptions, references, training completed, awards, reprimands, attendance, sick
leave, doctor notes, insurance records, benefits and Worker's Compensation
records, performance reviews, letters correspondence, payroll and W-2 forms.
Pertaining to: Defendant D. Goshay
Goshay was employed as a full-time police officer with the City of Gary and by the Gary
Community School Corporation as a security police officer. Although the Gary Community
School System responded to Grimes’ Motion to Compel Discovery Response From Defendant
City of Gary [DE 36], the City of Gary did not file a response to the motion to compel, and the
record is not clear that the City of Gary ever responded to the discovery request. For this reason,
the court GRANTS Grimes’ Motion to Compel Discovery Response From Defendant City of
Gary [DE 36] and DIRECTS the City of Gary to provide a response within 14 days.
ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2014

/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge