RPM Pizza, LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company

Filing 160

RULING granting in part and denying in part 141 Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses. RPM may file a another motion to compel based on discovery issues that remain in dispute. If a new motion is necessary, RPM must file the motion by 11/15/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/24/2013. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RPM PIZZA, LLC, D/B/A
DOMINO’S PIZZA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 10-864-BAJ-SCR

ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Before the court is a Motion to Compel the Production of
Documents and Interrogatory Responses filed by plaintiff RPM Pizza
LLC, (hereafter, “RPM”).

Record document number 141.

The motion

is opposed.1
This discovery dispute arises out of 12 interrogatories and 17
document requests served by RPM on defendant Argonaut Great Central
Insurance Company on July 28, 2013.2
served

objections

and

partial

RPM stated that the defendant

answers

and

responses

to

the

discovery on August 28, 2013.3
RPM filed this motion on September 16, 2013.

In the motion

1

Record document number 146. RPM filed a reply memorandum,
which adopted the reply memorandum filed by Domino’s Pizza LLC in
connection with its motion to compel discovery. Record document
number 149. Defendant Argonaut filed a sur-reply memorandum.
Record document number 156.
2

Record document numbers 141-1 and 141-2, Exhibits A and B,
respectively.
3

Record document numbers 141-4 and 141-5, Exhibits D and E,
respectively.

RPM stated that the defendant improperly objected/refused to answer
Interrogatory Numbers 2, 3 and 5.

RPM also argued that the

defendant has improperly objected/refused to produce documents in
response to Requests for Production of Document Numbers 4, 5, 7, 8,
9, 16, and 17.
Although these document requests are specifically addressed in
the motion, RPM also sought to compel production of documents as to
the other document requests. RPM asserted that, up to the date the
motion was filed, the defendant had not produced a single document
in

discovery

or

provided

a

date

by

which

it

would

filed

a

produce

documents.
On

October

memorandum.4

21,

2013

Defendant

the

stated

defendant
that

on

October

11,

produced 555 Bates-labeled documents to RPM by email.

sur-reply
2013,

it

Based on

this document production, the defendant argued that RPM’s motion to
compel should be denied, and it should be awarded the expenses it
has incurred in opposing the motion.
This motion may be moot, in large part, in light of the
defendant’s October 11 production of documents.

Therefore, it

would be a wasteful effort to resolve the motion now based on the
motion

as

production.

it

stood

before

the

defendant’s

recent

document

At the same time, it would not be equitable to simply

deny the motion as urged by the defendant, without giving RPM the

4

Record document number 156.
2

opportunity to review the documents and determine what aspects of
its motion are moot, and what discovery responses are still in
dispute.

Therefore, the best course at this time is to deny RPM’s

motion, but without prejudice to RPM filing another motion after it
has reviewed the documents and determined what aspects of this
motion, if any, still need to be resolved by the court.
With regard to the award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A),
RPM rather than the defendant is entitled to an award of reasonable
expenses.

Although the defendant stated in its initial responses

on August 28, 2013 that it would provide certain documents, it did
not produce them.

It was not until October 11, three weeks after

RPM filed this motion to compel that the defendant produced any
documents.

Defendant’s only explanation was that production was

delayed because of a recent change in local counsel. Yet, the
defendant never filed a motion for extension of time to provide the
documents it stated it would produce.

In these circumstances, the

defendant’s actions were not substantially justified. Because none
of the documents were provided until after RPM filed its motion to
compel, RPM is entitled to an award of reasonable expenses.

A

review of the motion and memoranda establish that an award of
$1,000 is reasonable.
Accordingly, RPM Pizza’s Motion to Compel the Production of
Documents and Interrogatory Responses is denied, in part.

The

motion is denied insofar as RPM sought to compel the defendant to

3

produce documents it previously withheld or failed to produce.
After

reviewing

the

defendant’s

October

11,

2013

document

production, RPM may file a another motion to compel based on
discovery issues that remain in dispute.

If a new motion is

necessary, Domino’s must file the motion by November 15, 2013.
The motion is granted insofar as Domino’s sought an award of
expenses.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., within 14

days, the defendant Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company shall
pay plaintiff RPM Pizza LLC its reasonable expenses in the amount
of $1,000.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 24, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4