HOLLEMAN v. ARAMARK CORPORATION et al

Filing 113

ENTRY - Defendants Littlejohn and Schilling shall have a further period of time, through May 17, 2013, in which to respond to the motions to compel (dkt 97 and dkt 99 ) with the required specificity. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/3/2013. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ROBERT L. HOLLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-323-TWP-DKL

ENTRY

The plaintiff seeks to compel discovery responses from defendants Teresa Littlejohn and
John Schilling. In their response to the motions to compel, the defendants have failed to show
with specificity that the discovery requests at issue were improper. Instead, the defendants
merely recite the objections raised in their responses to the plaintiff’s discovery requests. This is
not sufficient.
The objecting party must show with specificity that the request is improper.
Graham v. Casey's General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 254 (S.D. Ind. 2002). That
burden cannot be met by “a reflexive invocation of the same baseless, often
abused litany that the requested discovery is vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
unduly burdensome or that it is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors, Corp.,
2006 WL 2325506 at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2006) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Rather, the court should consider “the totality of the circumstances,
weighing the value of material sought against the burden of providing it, and
taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truth-seeking function in
the particular case before the court.” Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d
676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rowlin v. Alabama, 200 F.R.D. 459, 461
(M.D.Ala.2001)).
Cunningham v. Smithkline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474, 478 (N.D. Ind. 2009).

Accordingly, defendants Littlejohn and Schilling shall have a further period of time,
through May 17, 2013, in which to respond to the motions to compel (dkt 97 and dkt 99) with
the required specificity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/03/2013

Date: _________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

Robert Holleman
10067
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel