Fuertes v. The City of Plaquemine

Filing 22

RULING on 21 Motion to Compel Discovery...Accordingly, the Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Set of Request for Production of Documents is granted. Plaintiff shall produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to the defendants request for production of documents, without objections, within 14 days. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the plaintiff is also ordered to pay to the defendants, within 14 days, reasonable expenses in the amount of $300.00. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 4/21/2010. (LSM, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TYIESHA M. FUERTES VERSUS THE CITY OF PLAQUEMINE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 09-152-RET-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Before the court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' First Set of Request for Production of Documents. Record document number 21. No opposition has been filed. On January 4, 2010 defendants City of Plaquemine, Mayor Mark A. Gulotta, Lindon A. Rivet, Jr., Oscar S. Mellion, Ralph Stassi, Jr., Michael Rivet, Timothy Martinez, Jimmie Randle, Jr., Dorothy Sansoni, Randolph Ware, William Cooper, Guy Lobue, Jr., and Georgia Harmason propounded their First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production on plaintiff Tyiesha Fuertes. After the 30 day

deadline under Rule 33, Fed.R.Civ.P. passed without a response, counsel for the defendants sent letters to counsel for the

plaintiff on February 2, 2010 and February 25, 2010 requesting the plaintiff's outstanding discovery responses. that the plaintiff thereafter submitted Defendants asserted answers to their

interrogatories but did not produce any documents. Defense counsel subsequently held a discovery conference with the plaintiff's counsel on March 17, 2010 wherein the plaintiff's counsel stated

that responses to the request for production would be forthcoming. Plaintiff has not produced any responsive documents since that time. Defendants filed this motion to obtain responses to their Request for Production of Documents. Defendants also sought an

award of costs incurred in bringing this motion. Plaintiff's failure to produce responsive documents or object to the defendants' request for production demonstrates that under Rule 37(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defendants are entitled to an order compelling the plaintiff to respond to the defendants' Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff must produce for inspection and copying all responsive documents within 14 days. will be allowed.1 Under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel discovery is granted, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant first making a good faith effort to obtain the discovery without court action, the party's nondisclosure, response or objection
1

No objections

was

substantially

justified,

or

that

other

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

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the defendants' efforts to obtain requested documents and to this motion demonstrate that the defendants are entitled to reasonable expenses under this rule.2 Nothing was filed in the record to demonstrate the amount of attorneys' fees incurred. A review of the motion and memorandum

supports the conclusion that an award of $300.00 is reasonable. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' First Set of Request for Production of Documents is granted. Plaintiff shall produce for inspection and

copying all documents responsive to the defendants' request for production of documents, without objections, within 14 days.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the plaintiff is also ordered to pay to the defendants, within 14 days, reasonable expenses in the amount of $300.00. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 21, 2010.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

These same facts show that the defendants' actions are not substantially justified and that there are no circumstances which would make an award of expenses unjust. 3

2