Simon v. Turner Industries Group, LLC et al

Filing 19

RULING denying 17 Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/06/2013. (CGP) Modified on 6/7/2013 to edit docket text (CGP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MELCHEZIDECK SIMON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-591-BAJ-SCR
TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP,
LLC, ET AL
RULING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
Before
Sanctions.

the

court

is

defendants’

Record document number 17.

Motion

for

Discovery

The motion is opposed.1

Defendants Turner Industries Group, LLC and Turner Industrial
Maintenance, LLC seek sanctions for the plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery issued April
10, 2013.2

The Ruling required the plaintiff to produce for

inspection and copying all documents responsive to the defendants’
requests for production, without objections, within 14 days after
the Ruling. Plaintiff had produced some documents already, but the
documents which were the focus of the Ruling are those documents
the plaintiff said he had provided to his former attorneys.
Plaintiff failed to produce any additional documents in response to
the Ruling, nor did he communicate with the defendants’ attorney
about the status of his request for such documents from his former
attorneys.

1

Record document number 17.

2

Record document number 16.

In

his

opposition

memorandum,

plaintiff

stated

that

the

plaintiff has confirmed with his former attorneys that they have no
additional documents to produce which the defendants do not already
have. Plaintiff’s former attorneys advised that the only documents
they have in the plaintiff’s client file are the plaintiff’s EEOC
Charge of Discrimination and the EEOC Notice of Right to Sue.3
It is now clear that the plaintiff has provided to the
defendants all documents he has which are responsive to the
Defendants’

First

Melchezideck Simon.4

Request

for

Production

of

Documents

to

Plaintiff is reminded that he has an ongoing

obligation to timely amend his discovery responses, as required
under

Rule

responsive

26(e),

Fed.R.Civ.P.,

documents.

The

if

failure

he
to

discovers
do

may

additional

result

in

the

plaintiff being prohibited from relying on such documents to supply
evidence on a motion or at trial, and/or the imposition of other
sanctions, as provided under Rule 37(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions
is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 6, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Record document number 17-1,
Discovery Sanctions, Exhibit 1.
4

Opposition

to

Motion

Record document number 8-2, Exhibit A, pp. 11-21.
2

for