WALTON v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, et al.

Filing 149

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Discovery Hearing held on 9/7/2012. This matter came before the Court for a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Respons e to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 21. [Dkt. 140.] Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, 140 , is hereby GRANTED; however, in light of the Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 21, no furthe r response to Interrogatory No. 21 is required. The Court Orders Plaintiff to submit a petition setting forth her expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurre d in making the Motion to Compel within seven days of the date of this Order. During the hearing, the Court also addressed Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. [Dkt. 139.] Plaintiff's coun sel represented that Plaintiff would not object to that motion. Accordingly, the motion will be granted by separate order (see Entry for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DEBORAH WALTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) NO. 1:11-cv-00417-JMS-MJD
)
)
)
)

MINUTE ENTRY FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
HEARING
HON. MARK J. DINSMORE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter came before the Court for a hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 21. [Dkt. 140.]

For the reasons set forth more

fully on the record of the hearing, which are incorporated by
reference herein, the Court rules as follows:
1.

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Demand for

Documents to Chase Home Finance, LLC (the "Discovery Request")
were served on October 14, 2011.

[Dkt. 140-2.]

Defendant Chase

did not respond to the Discovery Request until July 16, 2012.
[Dkt. 144-1.]

Chase's response to the Discovery Request was

untimely in that neither Plaintiff nor the Court granted Chase an
enlargement until the date the response was served.
2.

Chase's initial response to Interrogatory 21 of the

Discovery Request stated no objection; instead, it purported to
respond through the production of responsive documents pursuant
to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[Dkt.

144-1 at 10.]

Chase then produced documents Bates No. CH103

through CH109, inclusive, accompanied by an e-mail containing a
key to the terms and codes set forth in those documents.

[Dkt.

140-4 (Dkt. 140-4 omits Bates No. CH107, but both parties agree
that page was among the documents produced in response to
Interrogatory No. 21); Dkt. 144-2.]
3.

On or about August 29, 2012, Chase served a

Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 21 (Chase
initially served a draft Supplemental Response on or about August
23, 2012, [Dkt. 140-6]; however, that Supplemental Response was
neither verified nor complete, as substantive changes thereto
were made prior to service of the verified Supplemental Response
dated August 29, 2012).

[Dkt. 144-3.]

The Supplemental Response

purported to assert objections to Interrogatory No. 21.

The

Court finds that Chase waived any objections to Interrogatory No.
21 as a result of its untimely response to the Discovery Request.
The Court further finds that Chase waived any objection to
Interrogatory No. 21 when it failed to assert any objection in
its initial response to that interrogatory.

Additionally, even

if timely and proper, Chase's objections to Interrogatory No. 21
would be overruled, as the Court finds Interrogatory No. 21 to be
neither vague nor unduly burdensome and finds that Interrogatory
No. 21 is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
information relevant to a claim or defense asserted in this
matter.

4.

The Court finds Chase's original response to

Interrogatory No. 21 to be insufficient under Rule 33(d), in that
the burden of ascertaining the answer to Interrogatory No. 21 was
not substantially the same for either party based solely upon the
production of documents Bates No. CH103 through CH109 and the
explanatory e-mail.

For example, it was not until the August 29,

2012 Supplemental Response that Chase explained for the first
time that the name found at the bottom of pages Bates No. CH103
through CH109 represented the Chase employee who conducted the
relevant investigation as requested by Interrogatory No. 21.
[Dkt. 144-3 at 2.]

However, with the further information set

forth in Chase's Supplemental Response, the Court finds that
Chase's response to Interrogatory No. 21 is now sufficient.
5.

The Court finds that Chase was unreasonably dilatory in

failing to respond to the Discovery Request for nine months
without appropriate enlargements of time.

The Court further

notes that, on July 9, 2012, Chase was ordered to respond fully
to the discovery request by no later than July 16, 2012, [Dkt.
129]; however, Chase did not provide a complete response to
Interrogatory No. 21 until on or about August 29, 2012.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 140], is hereby
GRANTED; however, in light of the Supplemental Response to
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 21, no further response to
Interrogatory No. 21 is required.

6.

The Court further finds that, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is appropriate to
award Plaintiff her reasonable expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred in making the motion.

In so ruling, the Court

expressly finds that (I) Plaintiff attempted to obtain the
necessary discovery in good faith without court action, (ii) that
Chase's nondisclosure, response and objections were not
substantially justified, and (iii) that no other circumstances
make an award of such expenses unjust.

Accordingly, the Court

Orders Plaintiff to submit a petition setting forth her expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in making the
Motion to Compel within seven days of the date of this Order.
Within seven days of the date of the petition, Chase may file any
objections to the fees sought.

Plaintiff may respond to any such

objections within seven days of their filing.

Thereafter, the

Court will review Plaintiff's petition and any objections and
enter an order awarding Plaintiff her reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees, incurred in making the Motion to
Compel to be paid by Defendant Chase.
During the hearing, the Court also addressed Defendant's
Motion for Protective Order.

[Dkt. 139.]

Plaintiff's counsel

represented that Plaintiff would not object to that motion.
Accordingly, the motion will be granted by separate order.
So Ordered.
Dated: 09/12/2012
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel