Delahoussaye et al v. Livingston Parish, Louisiana et al

Filing 87

RULING denying as moot 79 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 3/3/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
COREY DELAHOUSSAYE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-481-SDD-SCR
LIVINGSTON PARISH,
LOUISIANA, ET AL
RULING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is a Motion to Compel Discovery filed by
defendant Livingston Parish, Louisiana. Record document number 79.
The motion is opposed.1
Defendant

filed

this

motion

to

compel

plaintiffs

Corey

Delahoussaye and C-Del, Inc. to respond to discovery requests
served on November 17, 2014.

Defendant asserted that a discovery

conference was held on December 15, 2014, and the plaintiffs’
counsel requested a one-week extension to provide the discovery
responses.2

Defendant asserted that after that deadline passed

without receipt of any responses, it filed this motion on December
24, 2014.
Plaintiffs provided evidence to show that their responses were

1

2

Record document number 83.

Defendant’s calculation of the extended deadline date its
supporting memorandum, December 22, 2014, is different from the
date in its Certificate Pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(2)(B), December 19,
2014. Record document numbers 79-1 and 79-3, respectively. For
purposes of this ruling, the Court will assume that a one-week
extension would have expired on December 22, 2014.

sent to the defendant on December 26, 2014.3

Thus, the defendant’s

request for an order compelling production of discovery responses
is moot.
Because the plaintiffs provided their responses after the
motion was filed, Rule 37(a)(5)(1) permits awarding the defendant
its reasonable expenses.

An award of expenses is required unless

the failure to provide the discovery was substantially justified or
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Defendant’s motion shows that a good faith attempt was made to
obtain the discovery without court action.

Plaintiffs’ counsel

asserted that she believed the defendant had granted a 10-day
extension, and that the deadline to respond was December 26, 2014.4
Plaintiffs’ counsel also informed the defendant that she had been
in the hospital with a family member the week of Christmas.5
Plaintiffs argued that the defendant was not prejudiced by getting
the responses a few days later.
While a specific demand is not required to award fees under
Rule 37(a)(5)(1), the defendant did not specifically request an
award

of

expenses

in

its

motion

assertions in their opposition.

3

or

contest

the

plaintiffs’

These facts, considered in light

Record document number 83-2.

4

Because the 10-day extension ended on Christmas Day, the
plaintiffs argued that the deadline expired on December 26, 2014.
5

Record document number 83-3.
2

of

the

plaintiffs’

reasons

for

the

alleged

delay,

establish

circumstances that make an award of expenses unjust.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by defendant
Livingston

Parish,

Louisiana

denied

as

moot.

Based

on

the

circumstances demonstrated by the plaintiffs, an award of expenses
pursuant to 37(a)(5)(1) is not warranted.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 3, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3