Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 42

RULING granting 36 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. As provided by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), plaintiff Joseph Davis is prohibited from supporting his claimswith the records or testimony, in any form, from any health care provider he has seen duri ng the past 10 years, i.e. since 2005, through May 29, 2015, and the testimony of Gwendolyn Davis, again in any form. Pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3), the plaintiff shall pay to the defendants, within 14 days, their reasonable expenses in the amount of $500.00. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/17/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH DAVIS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 08-708-BAJ-SCR
EAST BATON ROUGE SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, ET AL.
RULING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Again before the court is the Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses filed by defendants, Sid J. Gautreaux, III in his
official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, James W.
Cooper, Matthew G. Holley, Jacqueline Bailey, Devin Jarreau, and
John Michael Knapp, individually and in their official capacities
as deputies with the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office.
Record document number 36.

Plaintiff did not file any opposition

to the motion.
Defendants filed this motion to compel plaintiff Joseph Davis
to respond to their Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents served on January 6, 2015.1

Defendants also sought an

award of expenses incurred in connection with the motion.
Defendants provided evidence of their efforts to obtain the
plaintiff’s discovery responses prior to filing this motion. On
February 9, 2015 the defendants sent correspondence to plaintiff’s

1

Record document number 36-2, Exhibit A.

counsel requesting discovery responses by February 23, 2015.2

On

February 23, 2015, the defendants sent a letter to the plaintiff’s
counsel requesting discovery responses by March 9, 2015 and setting
a Rule 26 telephone conference for March 10, 2015.3

At the March

10 discovery conference the plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide
the discovery responses by March 20, 2015.4

After no responses

were received by that date, the defendants filed this motion to
compel on March 24, 2015.
At the April 16, 2015 scheduling conference counsel for the
plaintiff advised that he anticipated serving the plaintiff’s
discovery responses that day.5

Counsel for the defendants advised

that she will review the plaintiff’s discovery responses and then
advise the court whether this motion is moot, in full or in part.6
The court was later informed by telephone that the plaintiff’s
discovery responses were received and were being reviewed, but it
appeared that some responses may be deficient.

The court issued

and Order to Supplement Motion to Compel Discovery which gave the
defendants until May 22, 2015 to advise the court whether the
motion is moot in full or in part, and as to any part not moot,
file a supplemental memorandum addressing whatever aspects of the

2

Record document number 36-3, Exhibit B.

3

Record document number 36-4, Exhibit C.

4

Record document number 36-5, Exhibit D.

5

Record document number 39, Status Conference Report.

6

Id.
2

motion are not moot.7

Plaintiffs would then have until May 29,

2015 to file a reply memorandum.

Defendants timely filed a

Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses,8 but the plaintiff did not file any reply.
Having considered the defendants supplemental memorandum, the
court finds that the defendants’s motion should be granted as to
the two interrogatories identified in the supplemental memorandum,
Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 19.

As to Interrogatory No. 7, the

plaintiff failed to identify any health care provider he saw during
the past ten years.

Signed authorizations to obtain medical

information are useless without the names of the health care
providers.
provide

any

Johnson has.

As to Interrogatory No. 19, the plaintiff failed to
statement

of

what

relevant

information

Gwendolyn

The answer “Open” is not sufficient.

In these circumstances, under Rule 37(d)(3) and (b)(2)(A),
Fed.R.Civ.P., the defendants are entitled to an order imposing
sanctions.

In

these

circumstances,

as

provided

by

Rule

37(b)(2)(A)(ii), it is appropriate to prohibit the plaintiff from
supporting his claims with the records or testimony, in any form,
from any health care provider he has seen during the past 10 years,
i.e. since 2005, through May 29, 2015,9 and the testimony of

7

Record document number 40.

8

Record document number 41.

9

As to any health care provider seen May 30, 2015 or later,
the plaintiff may be prohibited from relying on such providers’s
(continued...)
3

Gwendolyn Davis, again in any form.
Defendants

also

attorney’s fees.

sought

an

award

of

expenses,

including

Under Rule 37(d)(3) the court must require the

party failing to act, 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, that the plaintiff did not serve
his discovery responses until after the motion was filed, and that
the two of the responses were still deficient.

Nothing in the

record indicates that the plaintiff’s failure was substantially
justified or that there are any circumstances which would make an
award of expenses unjust.
to

reasonable

expenses

Therefore, the defendants are entitled
under

Rules

37(a)(5)(A)

and

(d)(3).

Defendants did not claim a specific amount of expenses incurred in
filing this motion. A review of the motion and memorandum supports
the conclusion that an award of $500.00 is reasonable.
Accordingly,
Responses

is

the

granted.

defendant’s
As

Motion

provided

by

to
Rule

Compel

Discovery

37(b)(2)(A)(ii),

plaintiff Joseph Davis is prohibited from supporting his claims
with the records or testimony, in any form, from any health care
provider he has seen during the past 10 years, i.e. since 2005,

9

(...continued)
records and testimony if the plaintiff fails to timely supplement
his discovery responses. Rule 37(c).
4

through May 29, 2015, and the testimony of Gwendolyn Davis, again
in any form. Pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3), the plaintiff shall pay to
the defendants, within 14 days, their reasonable expenses in the
amount of $500.00.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 17, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5