Heck et al v. Buhler et al

Filing 241

RULING granting in part and denying in part 238 Motion for Contempt and 239 Motion to Compel. Defendant Wayne Triche shall provide responses to theplaintiffs' interrogatories and request for production of documents within 14 days. No object ions will be allowed. Because the defendants actions were substantially justified, no costs are due under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Plaintiff's motion is denied insofar as the plaintiff sought an order finding the defendant in contempt. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/28/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RAYMOND E. HECK, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 07-21-BAJ-SCR
KENNETH K. BUHLER, ET AL.
RULINGS ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR CONTEMPT
Before the court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery
and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt filed by plaintiffs Raymond
Heck,

Doug

Richardson.

Hamley,

Charles

Moore,

Joseph

McKearn,

Record document numbers 238 and 239.1

and

Allen

The motions are

opposed.2
Plaintiff filed this motion to compel and for contempt based
on defendant Wayne Triche’s failure to respond to interrogatories
and request for production of documents served on April 20, 2015,
pursuant to Rule 69, Fed.R.Civ.P.3 Defendant argued that responses
to these discovery requests and/or an order of contempt are
unnecessary because he offered to pay the full amount due under the
judgment.
A review of the record shows that the defendant attempted to
pay the plaintiffs a comprise amount while appeal of the case was

1

The same motion and memorandum is filed twice in the record.
Record document number 239 includes attached Exhibits A-E.
2

Record document number 240.

3

Record document number 239-2 and 239-3, Exhibits A and B.

pending.4

The parties disagree on the total amount owed.

Thus,

the plaintiffs have not accepted the compromise. Regardless of the
dispute over the amount owed, the settlement negotiations do not
relieve the defendant of his obligations under Rule 69.5
In these circumstances, under Rule 69(a)(2) and Rule 37(a)(3),
the defendant is entitled to an order requiring the plaintiff to
respond.

Defendant will be required to serve answers to the

plaintiffs’ interrogatories and request for production of documents
within 14 days.

No objections will be allowed.6

Under Rule 37(d)(3) the court must require the party who fails
to serve its discovery responses, or the attorney advising that
party,

or

both,

to

pay

the

reasonable

expenses,

including

attorney’s fees caused by the failure unless the failure was
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of
expenses unjust.

Defendants’ motion shows that a good faith

attempt was made to obtain the discovery responses without court
action.

However, the record also establishes that the plaintiff’s

failure was based on the ongoing settlement negotiations.

4

The

Record document number 240-1, Exhibits A, B, and C.

5

Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a
judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person, including a
judgment debtor.
6

Generally, discovery objections are waived if a party fails
to timely object to interrogatories, production requests or other
discovery efforts.
See, In re U.S., 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th
Cir.), reh’g denied, 869 F.2d 1487 (5th Cir. 1989); Godsey v. U.S.,
133 F.R.D. 111, 113 (S.D. Miss. 1990.)
2

court finds that in these circumstances, the defendant’s failure to
timely serve his discovery responses was substantially justified.
Therefore,

an

award

of

expenses

under

Rule

37(d)(3)

is

not

warranted.
With respect to the plaintiff’s motion for contempt, under 28
U.S.C. § 636(e) a magistrate judge has very limited authority to
find a party in contempt.

A certification of the facts to the

district judge under § 636(e)(6) is not warranted, and is premature
under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), because the defendant did not violated
any court order and provided a reasonable explanation for his
failure to timely serve discovery responses.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt is granted in part and denied in
part.

Defendant Wayne Triche shall provide responses to the

plaintiffs’ interrogatories and request for production of documents
within 14 days.

No objections will be allowed.

Because the

defendant’s actions were substantially justified, no costs are due
under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Plaintiff’s motion is denied insofar as the
plaintiff sought an order finding the defendant in contempt.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 28, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3