Brandon v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Filing
9
RULING & ORDER granting 6 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff Latonya Brandon shall provide complete responses to LSUs Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LSU is entitled to an award of the reasonable attorneys fees and costs that it incurred in bringing this motion to compel and that, in connection with that award, the parties are to follow the instructions stated within. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 9/12/2011. (LSM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LATONYA BRANDON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE
NO. 10-817-BAJ-CN
RULING & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 6) filed by
defendant, Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College (“LSU”). Plaintiff, Latonya Brandon (“Brandon” or “plaintiff”), has not
filed an opposition to this motion.
FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Brandon filed this suit against LSU in state court on or about October 27, 2010,
alleging that, during the Fall 2009 semester, she was “maliciously subjected to the filing or
initiation of a complaint alleging violations of the LSU Code of Student Conduct” and that
she was suspended from the university without sufficient probable cause or due process
of law in violation of the Louisiana and U.S. Constitutions. On December 6, 2010, LSU
removed the suit to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1331.
On February 9, 2011, LSU propounded interrogatories to Brandon.
Brandon
responded to those interrogatories two (2) months after the deadline provided for by law,
but according to LSU’s present motion, two (2) of her interrogatory responses are deficient.
1
Specifically, LSU complains about Brandon’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14,
to which Brandon responded that she is “collecting [the responsive] information and will
provide [it] in the near future.” Despite such representation, Brandon still had not provided
responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 as of July 6, 2011, and LSU therefore filed this
motion seeking to have the Court compel Brandon to produce complete responses to those
interrogatories and to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees that LSU incurred
in connection with the filing of this motion.1
LAW & ANALYSIS
Local Rule 7.5M of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in
opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion. The
rule specifically provides:
LR7.5M
Response and Memorandum
Each respondent opposing a motion shall file a response,
including opposing affidavits, memorandum, and such
supporting documents as are then available, within 21 days
after service of the motion. Memoranda shall contain a concise
statement of the reasons in opposition to the motion, and a
citation of authorities upon which the respondent relies. For
good cause appearing therefor, a respondent may be required
to file a response and supporting documents, including
memoranda, within such shorter or longer period of time as the
court may order, upon written ex parte motion served on all
parties.
The present motion was filed on July 6, 2011, and the Court’s electronic filing system
1
The Rule 37 Certificate filed by LSU’s counsel confirms that, prior to filing the present motion, he
wrote a detailed letter to Brandon’s counsel, on May 9, 2011, regarding his concerns with plaintiff’s
discovery responses and that, on May 26, 2011, he followed upon with Brandon’s counsel by letter
concerning the outstanding discovery requests. On both occasions, LSU’s counsel “specifically drew
attention to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a substantive answer to Interrogatories 13 and 14" and “specifically
stated on both occasions that[,] if answers were not forthcoming, LSU would have no choice but to file a
motion to compel.” R. Doc. 6-1, p. 1.
2
indicates that notice of the filing of the motion was sent to Brandon’s counsel on that same
date at 3:00 p.m. CDT. The opposition to the motion was therefore due on July 27, 2011,
and on that date, Brandon filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion,
which was ultimately granted by the Court, allowing Brandon an extension to September
9, 2011 to respond to the motion. Such September 9, 2011 deadline has now expired, and
Brandon has never filed an opposition to the present motion. The motion is therefore
deemed to be unopposed.
In addition to being unopposed, LSU’s motion has merit and should be granted.
Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 seek information that is relevant to Brandon’s claim that the
procedures utilized by LSU in suspending her from the university denied her due process
and were malicious.2
3
LSU is entitled to seek, through written discovery requests, any
non-privileged information that is relevant to the plaintiff’s claims, where the discovery
“appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” concerning
2
Interrogatory No. 13 seeks a detailed description of “the complete factual basis for [Brandon’s]
allegation that the filing of a complaint against [her] was ‘malicious’.” As part of her answer, she is to
provide “a timeline of events, a list of witnesses with knowledge, and a list of documents that specifically
support [her] allegation of maliciousness.”
Interrogatory No. 14 requests a detailed description of the “complete factual basis of [Brandon’s]
allegation that [she was] suspended from LSU ‘without sufficient probable cause or due process of law.”
As part of her answer, Brandon is asked to “specifically identify those elements of the disciplinary process
that denied [her] due process of law” and to “specifically identify what in [her] opinion LSU should have
done differently to protect [her] due process rights.” She is also requested to provide “a timeline of events,
a list of witnesses with knowledge, and a list of documents that specifically support [her] allegation that
[she was] denied due process of law.”
3
LSU argues, in its motion, that Brandon’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 are
particularly relevant since LSU contends that she received “more process than what is required” because
she undisputedly received a hearing prior to her suspension, even though the Due Process Clause does
not require a hearing under such circumstances. LSU correctly points out that Brandon cannot simply
assert conclusory allegations of a due process violation and must, through discovery, point to specific
factual allegations supporting her contention that LSU denied her due process of law and that its actions in
connection with her disciplinary proceedings and suspension were malicious.
3
such claims. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because Brandon failed to submit complete
responses or objections to the subject interrogatories within thirty (30) days after such
requests were served and did not obtain a court order or a written agreement from LSU
extending the time period within which to respond in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33,4
LSU is entitled to an order compelling Brandon to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14
within fifteen (15) days of this Order5 and to an award of the reasonable expenses and
attorney’s fees that it incurred in bringing this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
(a)(5)(A).6
4
As a general rule, when a party fails to object timely to interrogatories, objections thereto are
waived. Romacorp, Inc. v. Prescient, Inc., 2011 WL 2312563 (S.D.Fla. 2011), quoting In re U.S. , 864 F.2d
1153 (5th Cir. 1989). Because numerous months have passed since the deadline for Brandon to submit
any objections to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14, such objections would likely be considered waived in the
event she asserts them at this late date.
5
Brandon’s failure to timely cooperate in discovery is contrary to her request to the Court (in the
status report) to have an expedited pre-trial schedule and trial date before the year’s end since timing is
allegedly “of the essence” in this matter.
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) provides that, if a motion to compel is granted – or if the disclosure or
requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed – the court must, after giving an opportunity to
be heard, require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that
conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including
attorney’s fees, unless (1) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the
disclosure or discovery without court action; (2) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response or objection
was substantially justified; or (3) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A). Since LSU was unable to obtain complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 from
Brandon, despite good faith efforts prior to court intervention, and Brandon has not established that her
failure to timely produce responses to such discovery requests was substantially justified or that an award
of expenses to LSU is unjust, the Court finds that an award of reasonable expenses and fees to LSU is
warranted under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).
4
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 6) filed by defendant, Board of
Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, is
hereby GRANTED, and that plaintiff, Latonya Brandon, shall provide complete responses
to LSU’s Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LSU is entitled to an award of the reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs that it incurred in bringing this motion to compel and that, in
connection with that award, the parties are to do the following:
(1)
If the parties agree to the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, plaintiff and/or
her counsel shall pay that amount;
(2)
If the parties do not agree to the amount, LSU shall, within fifteen (15) days
of the date this Order is signed, submit to the Court a report setting forth the amount of
costs and attorney’s fees (including evidentiary support) incurred in obtaining this Order;
and
(3)
Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days after the filing of LSU’s report to file an
opposition.
Signed in chambers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 12, 2011.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE NOLAND
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?