Johnson v. Maestri Murrell Property Management et al

Filing 156

ORDER denying 145 Motion to Compeal (sic) Discovery for Trial Purposes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 03/05/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KIMBERLY M. JOHNSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 09-638-JJB-SCR
MAESTRI MURRELL PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FOR TRIAL
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Compeal (sic)
Discovery

for

Trial

Purposes.

Defendant

Maestri-Murrell

Record

Property

document

Management,

number

LLC

145.

filed

an

opposition.1
Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the defendant to (1)
produce

information

related

to

a

subpoena

sent

to

Southern

University, which then produced to the defendant a transcript
showing her course work at the university, (2) produce documents
showing the defendant’s gross revenues for the past ten years, and
(3) update its previous discovery responses.2

The interrogatory

and request for production of documents was served on July 3, 2014.
Defendant objected to discovery requests on the ground that they
were untimely.3

1

Record document number 149.
Plaintiff
memorandum. Record document number 150.
2

Record document number 145-2, Exhibit B.

3

Record document number 145-2, Exhibit C.

filed

a

reply

In her motion the plaintiff did not dispute that the discovery
requests

were

untimely.

The

record

does

not

show

that

the

plaintiff either obtained an extension of the discovery completion
deadline or leave of court to serve the additional discovery
requests.
All of the parties arguments and evidentiary submissions have
been considered, even those not specifically addressed in this
ruling.

As to the Southern University grades transcript, the

plaintiff’s motion is also moot.

The motion is procedurally moot

because the transcript has already been produced. The motion is
substantively moot because the district judge already determined in
his July 10, 2014 ruling on the plaintiff’s earlier Motion in
Limine that the transcript is relevant evidence.4

The procedural

defects in the manner the defendant obtained the transcript, which
the plaintiff now relies on, could have been raised in that
motion.5
As to the request for financial information, even the cases
cited by the plaintiff do not hold that the defendant’s gross
revenue is relevant evidence on the issue of punitive damages.6

4

Record document number 143, Order ruling on the plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine, record document number 129..
5

Plaintiff knew that the subpoena was purportedly issued from
the “19th Judicial Court.” Record document number 143, Order, p.
3, quoting from the May 14, 2012 letter from the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges which
the plaintiff submitted in support of her motion.
6

Defendant also argued that it should not have to produce
(continued...)
2

As to her request for the defendant to supplement its previous
discovery responses, this request was not included in her formal
discovery requests.

This request is included in the plaintiff’s

counsel’s July 7, 2014 letter to the defendant’s counsel.
extent

the

letter

sought

new

information

and

To the

documents

not

previously sought, the letter is an untimely request for discovery.
To the extent the letter sought supplemental discovery responses,
it serves as a reminder that all parties have an ongoing obligation
to

supplement

Fed.R.Civ.P.

previous

discovery

responses.

Rule

26(e),

Failure to do so may result in the party being

prohibited from using the additional information in connection with
a hearing or at the trial.

Rule 37(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.

In any event,

the defendant asserted in its opposition memorandum that such
additional information does not exist.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compeal (sic) Discovery
for Trial Purposes is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 5, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

(...continued)
gross revenue information until and unless it becomes relevant,
i.e., the plaintiff is awarded punitive damages. Record document
number 149, p. 4. In the event the jury returns a verdict for the
plaintiff and finds that she proved her entitlement to a award of
punitive damages, the court may allow the plaintiff to present
additional evidence relevant to the amount of punitive damages.
This should be addressed in the pretrial order and at the pretrial
conference.
3