Brown v. Louisiana State Senate et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Initial Disclosures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/20/2012. (CGP)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANN S. BROWN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER 11-620-BAJ-SCR LOUISIANA STATE SENATE, ET AL RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Before the court is the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Initial Disclosures filed by defendants Joel T. Chaisson, II and the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana State Senate. document number 15. Record No opposition has been filed. Defendants’ motion shows that despite a deadline of March 28, 2012, the Defendants plaintiff served failed the to make plaintiff her with initial their disclosures.1 First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on March 29, 2012.2 As of the time of filing this motion the plaintiff had also failed to provide any answers or documents in response to these discovery requests. Despite the defendants’ repeated efforts to obtain the disclosures and discovery responses,3 the plaintiff still has not fulfilled any of her discovery obligations. 1 Record document number 13, item B. 2 Nor has Record document number 15-2, exhibit A. 3 Record document number 15-3, exhibit B, and record document number 15-4, exhibit C. the plaintiff responded to this motion or otherwise furnished any information indicating when the disclosures/discovery responses will be provided. In these circumstances, under Rule 37(b) and (d)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defendants are entitled to an order compelling the plaintiff to respond and imposing sanctions. Plaintiff will be required to provide the initial disclosures, answer the interrogatories, and produce responsive documents for inspection and copying within 14 days. No objections will be allowed.4 Rule 37(d)(3) incorporates the sanctions available under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). However, other than recovery of the expenses incurred in filing the motion the defendants did not seek additional sanctions. With regard to the recovery of expenses, under Rule 37(d)(3) the court must require the party failing to act, or the attorney advising that party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees caused by the failure unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Defendants’ motion shows that a good faith attempt was made to obtain the disclosures and discovery responses without court action. Plaintiff never responded to this motion or otherwise offer any explanation for the failure to cooperate and 4 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 provide her discovery. plaintiff’s Nothing in the record indicates that the failure circumstances that was would substantially make an award justified of expenses or any unjust. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to reasonable expenses under Rule 37(d)(3). Defendants did not claim a specific amount for the time expended in filing this motion. motion and memorandum supports However, a review of the the conclusion that an award of $250.00 is reasonable. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Initial Disclosures is granted. Plaintiff shall serve the initial disclosures, answers to interrogatories, and produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to the defendants’ requests for production, without objections, within 14 days. Pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3), the plaintiff is also ordered to pay to the defendants, within 14 days, reasonable expenses in the amount of $250.00. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 20, 2012. STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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?