Stewart v. Gautreaux, III et al

Filing 22

ORDER: Pltfs 16 Motion to Compel and for Additional Time to Amend is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 6/25/2013. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ASHLEY STEWART
VS.
SHERIFF SID J. GAUTREAUX, III, et al

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-594-BAJ-RLB

ORDER
This matter is before the court on a referral from the District Court of Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel and for Additional Time to Amend (rec. doc. 16). The motion is opposed (rec. doc.
18). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I.

Background
Stewart filed this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section

1983”) (rec. doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 34-35). According to her complaint, on January 23, 2012,
approximately two months after she was arrested and incarcerated, a state court judge determined
that Stewart was being held under the wrong Bill of Information (rec. doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 6, 8). On
January 26, 2012, the judge dismissed the charges against her (rec. doc. 1-1 ¶ 10). However,
after the court hearing, Stewart was returned to East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, where she
remained incarcerated for an additional month, or until February 24, 2012 (rec. doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 11,
19). Stewart alleges that, despite completing the necessary paperwork and making multiple
inquiries regarding her continuing incarceration, Defendants refused to release her and failed to
respond to her inquiries (rec. doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 12-15). According to Stewart's complaint, “a person
not employed with by [sic] Sheriff” eventually obtained a copy of the state court docket sheet
and minute entry and presented them “to Captain Scott or those over whom he has supervision.”
(rec. doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 17-18). As a result, she was released from prison (rec. doc. 1-1 ¶ 19).

On October 8, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(rec. doc. 2). On May 21, 2013, the District Court issued a ruling whereby the Motion to
Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part (rec. doc. 15). Specifically, Plaintiff’s individual
capacity claims against Defendants were dismissed.
The request to dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity claims was denied (rec. doc. 15). The
District Court, however, noted that the Plaintiff has “failed to identify a policy or custom” which
inflicted injury or damage upon the Plaintiff (rec. doc. 15 at 16-17). The Court ordered that
“Plaintiff shall be granted leave to conduct limited discovery to determine whether the East
Baton Rouge Parish has a policy or custom related to the timely release of prisoners, and/or
whether there is a pattern of similar constitutional deprivations at the East Baton Rouge Parish
Prison” and that such discovery must be completed by June 21, 2013. The deadline to file a
motion for leave to amend the complaint, or add new parties, claims, counterclaims, or crossclaims was extended to July 12, 2013 (rec. doc. 15 at 18).
II.

Discussion
On June 20, 2013, the day before the time to conduct limited discovery expired, the

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. The Motion requests an order compelling certain discovery
responses and also seeks extensions of certain pleading and discovery deadlines.
A.

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court compelling the Defendants to respond to certain
discovery requests that had been served in February. In both the Motion and the Memorandum
in Support, Plaintiff misrepresents the extent of the discovery permitted. In addition to the scope
set forth above, Plaintiff alleges that the District Court’s ruling requires the Defendants to
respond to any discovery regarding or relating to “the name of the individual who was personally

responsible for the false imprisonment.” (rec. doc. 16 at 3 and rec. doc. 16-1 at 2-3). This is not
contained in the Court’s May 21, 2013 Order.
In addition to seeking an order compelling Defendants’ responses, Plaintiff requests an
additional three months of discovery and additional time to amend the complaint.
Following the Court’s Order regarding the limited scope of discovery that Plaintiff was
granted leave “to conduct,” Plaintiff has not indicated that she took any steps to obtain any
additional information or propound any new discovery requests within the parameters of the
District Court’s Order.
Instead, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants should have responded to certain of the
previously served discovery requests, presumably because some of the requested information
could fall within the limited discovery permitted. Plaintiff did not identify or propose to the
Defendants which of those requests would qualify and likewise has not represented to the Court
that there was any attempt to confer in an attempt to resolve this issue prior to filing the Motion
to Compel.
Plaintiff seems to acknowledge that large portions of the previous discovery requests are
not within the scope of the Court’s Order. For example, Plaintiff only seeks the Court to compel
responses to 7 interrogatories (out of 9 total) and 7 requests for production (out of 24 total) (rec.
docs. 16 at 3-6 and 16-2 at 4-14). Even these limited requests, however, go well beyond the
scope of the discovery permitted.
The Court has reviewed each of the Interrogatories that are the subject of the Motion to
Compel. 1 The Court has also reviewed each of the Requests for Production of Documents that
are the subject of the Motion to Compel.2 The Court finds that only Interrogatory Number 3

1
2

These are Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
These are Requests for Production Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

sufficiently sets forth a request for responsive information that falls within the scope of permitted
discovery. 3
The determination that one of the previously served Interrogatories falls within the
parameters of the District Court’s Order, however, is not the end of the inquiry. It is far from
clear that Plaintiff’s previous requests, without some limitation or revision in compliance with
the limitations imposed, would justify an Order compelling the Defendants to respond. Plaintiff
was not, of course, required to conduct any additional discovery. Indeed, by waiting until the
end of the permitted timeframe, Plaintiff has decided not to conduct any additional discovery
(within the scope of the Court’s Order) other than those items set forth in the Motion to Compel.
The Defendants have eliminated the need for the Court to determine whether it would be
proper to compel them to respond to Interrogatory No. 3, as they have provided a response to the
Plaintiff (rec. doc. 19). The Court will not compel responses to any other discovery requests set
forth in the Plaintiff’s Motion.
When a Motion to Compel is denied, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
directs the imposition of reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including
attorney’s fees, unless the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.
The Court has determined that in this circumstance it is appropriate for each party to bear
its own expenses in litigating the Motion to Compel. Although the Motion is denied, the Court
did not need to determine whether to grant it in part because the Defendants responded to
Interrogatory No. 3 after the Motion was filed. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), a disclosure made
after the Motion to Compel is filed can be treated as being granted for purposes of payment of
3

Interrogatory No. 3 requests that the Defendants “Identify each and every policy, rule or regulation regarding the
retention of detainees and determining your jurisdiction or power under law to detain an individual and to avoid
false imprisonment.”

expenses. As such, the Court views this as a situation more appropriately considered under Rule
37(a)(5)(C) allowing for the apportionment of expenses to both parties. 4
B.

Motion for Additional Time

Plaintiff also asks for additional time to amend the complaint from the receipt of the
discovery responses. The current deadline is July 12, 2013. The previous deadline was June 3,
2013 (rec. doc. 10). Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of
good cause to extend a scheduling order deadline. See also Hodges v. U.S., 597 F.2d 1014, 1018
(5th Cir. 1979) (trial court has “a broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of the
pretrial order”). This Motion is insufficient. Plaintiff has not provided good cause to extend this
deadline once again. Plaintiff has received the requested responses to her discovery requests that
fall within the scope permitted by the Court. Plaintiff apparently chose not to conduct any
additional discovery. Plaintiff has not provided any information as to why the remaining two
weeks is insufficient to determine whether a request for leave to amend is appropriate.
Finally, Plaintiff requests an additional three months to conduct discovery. Plaintiff
waited until the day before the permissible timeframe expired to make this request. Plaintiff has
not indicated what discovery needs to be completed, whether any discovery not referenced in the
Motion to Compel (and within the scope of permitted discovery) has been accomplished thus far,
and why the timeframe is insufficient. Plaintiff has also not explained what efforts have been
taken to accomplish any additional discovery, why such efforts have been unsuccessful, and why
an extension of 3 months is needed. Again, Plaintiff’s Motion is insufficient.

4

For these same reasons, the Court finds that an award of expenses would be unjust.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Additional Time to
Amend (rec. doc. 16) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 25, 2013.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE