Ham v. Marshall County, Kentucky et al
Filing
114
OPINION & ORDER denying 88 Motion to Compel; denying 96 Motion for Expenses. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 9/20/2012. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-11
TERRELL W. HAM
PLAINTIFF
v.
MARSHALL COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (DN 88) Defendants
Sterling Emergency Services of the Midwest, Inc. (“Sterling”) and Scott Wilson to produce a
privilege log. Defendants have responded (DN 94), attaching to their Response the requested
privilege log (DN 94-1). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Expenses (DN 96) incurred in
connection with his Motion to Compel. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons
that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (DN 88) is DENIED AS MOOT, and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Expenses (96) is DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Because Defendants have disclosed the requested privilege log, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel is moot. Plaintiff has requested expenses for preparing the motion to compel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if a motion to
compel disclosure or discovery is granted, “the court must require ... the party or attorney whose
conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making
the motion, including attorney's fees.” The Rule further provides that the Court “must not order
this payment if … the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially
justified.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii).
The Court does not find that sanctions are warranted here. It appears Defendants did not
act in bad faith. They acted with reasonable promptness and their initial refusal to disclose the
requested information appear grounded in a good faith belief they were legally entitled to do so
under the Federal Rules. Additionally, without an order from this Court, Defendants voluntarily
disclosed the privilege log by attaching it to their response. Plaintiff also does not argue that it
has been prejudiced by Defendants’ delay in disclosing the requested information. Therefore,
the Court finds no reason to grant Plaintiff its request for expenses.
CONCLUSION
The Court being duly and sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (DN 88) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Motion for Expenses
(DN 96) is also DENIED.
September 20, 2012
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?