Ahumada v. Belcher Management, LLC, et al

Filing 32

RULING granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion to Compel or alternatively, Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/28/2013. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ERNESTO F. AHUMADA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-685-SDD-SCR
BELCHER MANAGEMENT, LLC,
ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OR DISMISS
Before the court is a Motion to Compel or, Alternatively,
Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Belcher Management, LLC,
Turnberry Place, LLC, Alicia Belcher, and Lance B. Belcher. Record
document number 26. The motion is opposed by the plaintiff Ernesto
F. Ahumada.1
Defendants filed this discovery motion to compel the plaintiff
to

provide

requests.

answers

and

responses

to

their

initial

discovery

Defendants served their discovery on August 8, 2013,

therefore, the plaintiff’s responses were due by September 8. When
the plaintiff failed to timely serve responses the defendants filed
this motion on September 25.
Plaintiff explained in his opposition that the discovery
responses were delayed because of the parties’ agreement to address

1

Record document number 28.
Defendants filed a reply
memorandum. Record document number 31.
The parties argued about compliance with the “attempt to
confer” requirement of Rule 37(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. The record does
not support denying the defendants’ motion on this ground.

jurisdiction first.2

Plaintiff argued that the motion is now moot

since he responded to the discovery on September 30.
reply

memorandum

the

defendants

acknowledged

In their

receiving

the

plaintiff’s September 30 responses, but argued that the motion is
not moot because the plaintiff’s answers to Interrogatory Numbers
6 and 13 were deficient - plaintiff did not provide the addresses
and phone numbers for the employers and individuals he identified.
Given the background of this motion and the answers and
responses provided by the plaintiff on September 30,3 there is
clearly no basis to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for failure to
cooperate in discovery.4

However, the plaintiff will be required

to correct the insufficiencies noted by the defendants in their
reply memorandum, that is, provide the addresses and telephone
numbers for the employers and individuals identified in the answers
to Interrogatory Numbers 6 and 13.
In their reply memorandum the defendants requested they be
allowed to take additional depositions if their forthcoming summary

2

The parties’ Joint Motion to Limit Discovery was denied on
September 20, 2013. Record document number 25.
3

The memoranda show that the motion was not filed earlier,
and the plaintiff did not provide his discovery responses sooner,
because of the parties’ informal agreement to limit discovery to
jurisdictional issues.
4

See, Batson v. Neal Spelce Associates, Inc., 765 F.2d 511,
515 (5th Cir. 1985), aff’d, 805 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1986)(Rule 37(b)
and (d) dismissal with prejudice as a sanction is a remedy of last
resort only to be applied in extreme circumstances).
2

judgment motion is not granted. Defendants stated that the request
is based on the fact that the plaintiff did not provide answers and
responses until the last day for the completion of fact discovery.
This motion to compel is not the proper avenue for such a request.
Any request for time to conduct additional discovery must be made
under Rule 16(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel or, Alternatively, Motion to
Dismiss filed by defendants Belcher Management, LLC, Turnberry
Place, LLC, Alicia Belcher, and Lance B. Belcher, is granted in
part.

Within 14 days, plaintiff Ernesto F. Ahumada shall provide

supplemental answers to defendants’ Interrogatory Numbers 6 and 13.
The remaining aspects of the defendants’ motion are denied.
Under Rule 37(a)(5), the parties shall bear the respective
costs incurred in connection with this motion.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 28, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3