Hines et al v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
Filing
92
RULING granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Compel Depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/30/2013. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLEMMIE HINES, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 11-254-JJB-SCR
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
Before the court is Defendant Cooper Tire’s Motion to Compel
Depositions
of
Plaintiffs
Laviticus Floyd.
Edward
Barnes,
Nakitia
Record document number 66.
Dorsey,
and
The motion is
opposed.1
Defendant filed this motion to compel the three above-named
plaintiffs to appear for their depositions.
After the motion was
filed, plaintiff Nakitia Dorsey appeared for her deposition on
January 29, 2013.2
Thus, this ruling will address the failure of
plaintiffs Barnes and Floyd to appear for their depositions.
Defendant summarized its numerous efforts to amicably schedule
these depositions since February 2012.
Plaintiffs asserted that
Floyd was notified of his deposition date but he did not appear.
Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that Floyd was informed that his
1
Record document number 78.
Defendant
memorandum. Record document number 79
2
filed
a
reply
Defendant also requested certain discovery responses be
produced by Dorsey seven days prior to her deposition.
This
request was not addressed in the defendant’s reply brief which was
filed after her deposition had been taken. Thus, the Court will
assume that this issue is now moot.
claim could be dismissed if he did not attend, and that Floyd
failed respond to any contact from counsel since that time.
Plaintiffs also asserted that all attempts to contact Barnes were
unsuccessful and that he is likely unaware that his claim could be
dismissed if he does not attend his deposition.
Plaintiffs
requested additional time to contact these two plaintiffs and
provide them with proper notice of the consequences of their
failure to appear for their depositions.
Clearly, the plaintiffs’ counsel’s inability to communicate
with his clients is not his fault.
Counsel made reasonable
attempts to obtain a response from both plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
Floyd and Barnes, just like the other plaintiffs, are ultimately
responsible for providing current and accurate contact information
and
timely
responding
communications
from
to
their
their
counsel.
correspondence
These
and
other
plaintiffs
cannot
circumvent their obligations by refusing or avoiding contact with
counsel.
Because the plaintiffs failed to provide any reasonable excuse
for their failure to appear, the defendant is entitled to an order
compelling
plaintiffs
depositions.
Floyd
and
Barnes
to
appear
for
their
Plaintiffs Floyd and Barnes will be required to
appear for their depositions on a reasonable date designated by the
defendant, within 45 days of this ruling.
2
No objections will be
allowed.3
Under Rule 37(d)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the court may sanction a
party who failed to attend its own deposition, or the attorney
advising that party, or both, any of the orders listed in Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(i-vii).
Failure to comply with this ruling may result
in additional sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i-vii), including,
but not limited to, dismissal of some or all of their claims.
Pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3), the court also must order payment
the movant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused
by the failure, unless the party’s failure was substantially
justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Defendant’s motion shows that a good faith attempt was made to take
the plaintiffs’ depositions without court action.
Plaintiffs
failed to offer any reasonable explanation for their failure to
appear at their depositions.
the
plaintiffs’
circumstances
failure
that
would
Nothing in the record indicates that
was
substantially
make
an
award
of
justified
expenses
or
any
unjust.
Therefore, the defendant is entitled to reasonable expenses under
Rule 37(d)(3).
Defendant did not claim a specific amount for the time
expended in filing this motion and in its attempt to scheduling the
3
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.)
3
depositions.
However, a review of the motion and memorandum
supports the conclusion that an award of $1,000.00 is reasonable.
The
award
is
itemized
as
follows:
$600.00
in
costs
for
the
defendant’s multiple efforts to depose these three plaintiffs, plus
$400.00 for the costs incurred in filing this motion.
Accordingly,
Depositions
of
Defendant
Plaintiffs
Cooper
Edward
Tire’s
Barnes,
Motion
Nakitia
to
Compel
Dorsey,
and
Laviticus Floyd is granted in part, and denied in part as moot.
Plaintiffs Edward Barnes and Laviticus Floyd shall appear for their
depositions without objections, within 45 days.
Pursuant to Rule
37(d)(3),
to
these
plaintiffs
are
also
ordered
pay
to
the
defendant, within 14 days, its reasonable expenses in the amount of
$1,000.00.
The remainder of the defendant’s motion is denied as
moot.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 30, 2013.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?