Paolucci v. Render, Kamas Law Firm and all partners from 1995 to the present

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 53 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 6/21/2013.Mailed to pro se party Barbara Paolucci by regular mail (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BARBARA PAOLUCCI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RENDER, KAMAS LAW FIRM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-1253-MLB-KGG

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Barbara Paolucci filed a federal court Complaint based on diversity
jurisdiction alleging legal malpractice against the Defendants resulting from
representation she allegedly received in a class action lawsuit resulting from
money she alleges to have lost from investing in toy distributor Parade of Toys.1
In the context of the present lawsuit, Defendant Render Kamas Law Firm
(“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Requests for Production.
Plaintiff’s responses were almost two months late when served and, according to
Defendant, were substantively deficient.

1

Plaintiff states that her legal malpractice lawsuit was initially filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, but that she “lost a motion to dismiss based on
long arm jurisdiction,” which was subsequently upheld on appeal. (Doc. 2, at 3.) She
contends that she has “been advised that this is the venue [she] need[s] to persue [sic].”.
(Id., at 2.)

Defendant’s Interrogatories at issue seek information regarding Plaintiff’s
investment in Parade of Toys (Interrogatory No. 6), alleged fraud by Parade of
Toys (Interrogatory No. 7), trade references Plaintiff communicated with regarding
Parade of Toys (Interrogatory No. 9.), legal advice she has received in the present
litigation as well as the New York lawsuit (Interrogatory No. 12), and the
identification of trial witnesses and exhibits (Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14).
(See Doc. 54-3.)
Defendant’s Requests for Production seek documents regarding
correspondence with Defendant, (Request No. 1), court personnel (Request No. 2),
the State of Kansas Attorney General (Request No. 14), and other listed individuals
(Requests Nos. 3-13, 15). (Doc. 54-4.) Additional Requests sought information
related to Parade of Toys (Requests Nos. 19, 20), and her alleged damages
(Request No. 22). (Id.)
In response to these discovery requests, Plaintiff generally either contended
that Defendant had the information, that she had provided this information in other
litigation, or failed to respond to the Interrogatories whatsoever. (See generally
Docs. 54-3, 54-4.) Plaintiff also responded at times by incorporating by reference
other discovery “responses” that Defendant contends were substantively
inadequate. (Id.)
2

Defendant also requests documents concerning Plaintiff’s communication
with attorney Timothy Mustaine (Doc. 54-4, at 2.) Plaintiff objected that while
Mr. Mustaine was “not representing [her] formerly [sic],” and that she had not paid
him for his services, “he assisted [her] with legal advice . . . .” (Id.) As such,
Plaintiff contends that this communication is privileged. Request No. 23 sought
documents regarding communications any Trade References (Request No. 23).
Plaintiff’s response incorporated her response to Request No. 17 regarding Mr.
Mustaine. (Id., at 3.)
Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and the
time to do so has expired pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1). As such, Defendant’s
motion is GRANTED as uncontested pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4. Plaintiff is
Ordered to provide supplemental responses to the discovery requests addressed in
Defendant’s motion within 30 days of the date of this Order.
By failing to respond to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff has waived any
objections she may have had to Defendant’s discovery requests. Cf. Sonnino v.
Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 221 F.R.D. 661, 670-71 (D. Kan. 2004) (holding
that a party fails to meet its burden to support its objections when it fails to address
those objections in response to a motion to compel, leaving the Court “without any
basis to determine whether the objections are valid and applicable in light of the
3

particular circumstances of the case”); Cooper v. Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc., No. 09-2441-JAR, 2011 WL 251447, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2011) (holding
that a discovery objection not relied upon in response to a motion to compel is
waived). As such, her responses shall be without objection.
The Court instructs Plaintiff that it is insufficient for her to generally refer to
documents that she believes to be in Defendant’s possession. She is instructed to
provide specific and thorough answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories, which may
include the option for Defendant to review documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d). She is
also instructed to produce all documents responsive to Defendant’s Requests for
Production or, in the alternative, make said documents available to Defendant for
inspection and copying at a mutually agreeable time and place. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc.
53) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 21st day of June, 2013.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

4