Keim v. Mazza et al

Filing 107

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 4/12/2023: Defendants Mazza and Butts shall respond to Keim's motion to compel 105 by no later than 5/2/2023. Keim may file a reply by no later than 5/22/2023. cc:counsel; Gary Keim, pro se (EAS)

Case 4:20-cv-00190-JHM-HBB Document 107 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 990

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-00190-JHM-HBB
GARY KEIM

PLAINTIFF

VS.
KEVIN MAZZA, et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Gary Keim for an order compelling Defendants
Kevin R. Mazza and Bobbi Jo Butts to answer interrogatories (DN 105). For the reasons that
follow, Mazza and Butts are directed to file a response to Keim’s motion to compel.
DISCUSSION
Apparently, Keim seeks to compel Mazza and Butts to answer Interrogatories that he
served on April 30, 2021 and July 22, 2021 (see DN 30, 31, 45). Keim previously moved to
compel Mazza and Butts to answer these interrogatories (DN 44).
On November 23, 2021, Judge McKinley issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that
addressed a number of motions filed by Keim, including the aforementioned motion to compel
(DN 66).

Concerning Keim’s claim that Butts and Mazza had failed to respond to the

interrogatories, Judge McKinley commented:
A review of the record reveals that Defendants Mazza and Butts did
not file an answer in this action until several months after Plaintiff
filed the instant motion to compel. Because these Defendants had
not yet answered the action, they were not required to engage in the
discovery process. Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants Mazza and Butts to respond

Case 4:20-cv-00190-JHM-HBB Document 107 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 991

to his discovery requests (DN 44) is DENIED as premature.
However, now that these Defendants have filed an answer, they are
required to engage in discovery with Plaintiff. Thus, the Court will
enter a revised Scheduling Order to govern the discovery process
and reset the dispositive motion deadline for these Defendants.
(Id. at p. 3).
On November 23, 2021, a Revised Scheduling Order was filed (DN 68). It set deadlines,
including discovery, that applied to Mazza and Butts (DN 68). In pertinent part the scheduling
order reads:
The parties shall complete all pretrial discovery herein no later than
March 21, 2022. As a requirement of discovery, Defendants’
counsel shall produce to Plaintiff all records or documentation
which are relevant to the continuing claims. Counsel shall certify
that the production is complete and shall file the certification
with the Court.
(DN 68 p. 1). In Orders filed on October 13, 2022, and January 3, 2023, the undersigned granted
motions filed by Mazza and Butts to extend their deadline to complete and certify discovery (DN
96, 101).
On March 2, 2023, Mazza and Butts timely certified that they had “produced to Plaintiff
all records or documentation which are relevant to the claim(s) set forth in the Complaint that have
survived initial review” (DN 104). While their certification addresses records or documentation that
Mazza and Butts have produced to Keim, it is silent concerning whether they have responded to his
interrogatories. Moreover, Keim appears to have responded to their certification by subsequently filing
his motion to compel Mazza and Butts to answer his interrogatories (DN 105).

For the above reasons, the Court needs clarification concerning whether Mazza and Butts
have responded to Keim’s interrogatories and, if not, why they should not be ordered to do so.

2

Case 4:20-cv-00190-JHM-HBB Document 107 Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 992

ORDER
WHEREFORE, Mazza and Butts shall respond to Keim’s motion to compel by no later
than May 2, 2023.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Keim may file a reply by no later than May 22, 2023.

April 12, 2023

Copies to:

Gary Keim, pro se
Counsel of Record

3