Miller et al v. Gusman et al

Filing 42

ORDERED that 36 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is GRANTED. The Defendants must provide their response to the Request for Production of Documents no later than November 9, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (cml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PAMELA MILLER, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO:

MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL

SECTION: “A” (4)

16-1167

ORDER
Before the Court is Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (R. Doc. 36) filed by
Plaintiffs Rodney Miller and Ronnie Miller seeking an order from the Court to compel responses
to their requests for production of documents from the Defendants. The motion was not opposed.
The motion was submitted on October 26, 2016. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel
is GRANTED.
I.

Background
This action was filed in the District Court on February 8, 2016 by Pamela Miller and

Rodney Williams, Sr. asserting federal claims against the Defendants—including Sheriff Marlin
Gusman and others connected to the Orleans Parish Sherriff’s Office (“OPSO”)—under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as well as supplemental state law claims. R. Doc. 1. On July 18,
2016, Rodney Miller and Ronnie Miller were substituted in the place of Pamela Miller following
her death. R. Doc. 34. The Plaintiffs allege that Ryan Miller, the son of Pamela Miller and Rodney
Williams, committed suicide on March 23, 2015 when he was left alone in an attorney visitation
booth while he was in detention at the Templeman Phase V facility within the Orleans Parish
Sheriff’s Office. R. Doc. 1, p. 14. Plaintiffs allege that Ryan Miller’s death was avoidable and was
the result of the Defendants’ actions. In particular, the Plaintiffs have asserted causes of actions
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Mr. Miller was deprived of his constitutional rights and that
certain defendants established policies or practices that resulted in that deprivation. R. Doc. 3, p.

31-35. The Plaintiffs also have alleged a number of state law causes of action, including
negligence, wrongful death, and derogation of duties. Id. at 35-36. Plaintiffs seek damages
suffered both by Ryan Miller as well as Pamela Miller and Rodney Williams. They also seek
attorney fees. Id. at p. 36-37.
At this time, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel discovery responses to their
Requests for Production of Documents that they propounded on the Defendant Gusman and other
OPSO Defendants on August 2, 2016. R. Doc. 37-2, p. 1. Plaintiffs state that they originally
granted a thirty day extension on August 24, 2016. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiffs again reached out about
the discovery request on October 3, 2016, and they agreed to another one week extension. Id. After
that week, the Plaintiffs informed the Defendants that a motion to compel would be necessary at
that time and contacted the Defendants about the still missing discovery. Id. At this time, the
Plaintiffs have still not received discovery. As such, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to
compel discovery responses. Moreover, the Defendants have not filed any opposition to the current
motion.
II.

Standard of Review
Discovery of documents, electronically stored information, and things is governed by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Rule 34 allows a party to request the production of “any
designated documents or electronically stored information” or “any tangible things.” Id. Rule 34
allows a party to request production to the extent of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2); 34(a).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides sanctions for failure to cooperate in discovery.
Rule 37(a) allows a party in certain circumstances to move for an order compelling discovery from
another party. In particular, Rule 37(a)(3)(b)(iii)-(iv) allows a party seeking discovery to move for
an order compelling an answer or production of documents where a party “fails to answer an

2

interrogatory” or “fails to produce documents.” An “evasive or incomplete” answer or production
is treated the same as a complete failure to answer or produce. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
In addition to alleging that the responding party has failed to properly cooperate with
discovery, a motion to compel under Rule 37(a) must also “include a certification that the movant
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(1).
III.

Analysis
For the instant motions to compel, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants have

failed to properly respond to requests for production of documents. R. Doc. 36. Plaintiffs have
provided the proper certification for the motion to compel under Rule 37(a). R. Doc. 36, p. 2. At
this time, the Defendants have not yet responded to the discovery requests and have not opposed
the instant motion to compel. As such, the Plaintiffs have properly filed a motion to compel under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(b)(iii)-(iv). Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs
motion to compel. 1
IV.

Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (R. Doc.

36) is GRANTED. The Defendants must provide their response to the Request for Production of
Documents no later than November 9, 2016.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of October 2016.

KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1

Note, the Plaintiffs have not requested attorneys’ fees in connection with the instant motion to compel.
3