Enriquez v. Turner Industries, L.L.C., et al

Filing 13

RULING granting 8 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 07/18/2013. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IRWIN ENRIQUEZ
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-55-SDD-SCR
TURNER INDUSTRIES, LLC, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
Before the court is the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions
filed by defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc.
document number 8.

Record

No opposition has been filed.

Defendant’s motion shows that it served the plaintiff with
initial

discovery

on

January

28,

2013.1

According

to

the

defendant, in a conference on February 27 the plaintiff agreed to
provide complete responses by March 19.

However, based on the

motion and lack of any opposition/response to it, as of this date
the plaintiff has failed to provide any answers or documents in
response to the defendant’s initial discovery requests.

Although

the defendant served the discovery before the time allowed under
Rule 26(d)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.,2 based on the date the parties filed
their status report - May 3, 2013 - the plaintiff’s answers and

1

2

Record document number 8-2, Exhibit A.

Under Rule 26(d)(1) “[a] party may not seek discovery from
any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure ...,
or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court
order.”

responses should have been provided to the defendant by the first
week of June.3 Therefore, the defendant’s motion demonstrates that
the plaintiff’s answers and responses are long overdue and under
Rule 37(b) and (d)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defendant is entitled
to an order compelling the plaintiff to respond and imposing
sanctions. Plaintiff will be required to provide the answers to
interrogatories, and produce responsive documents for inspection
and copying within 14 days.
37(d)(3)

incorporates

37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).

the

No objections will be allowed.4
sanctions

available

under

Rule
Rule

However, other than recovery of the expenses

incurred in filing the motion the defendant 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.

Defendant’s motion shows that a good faith

attempt was made to obtain the discovery responses without court
action.

3

Plaintiff never responded to this motion or otherwise

Record document numbers 5 and 6.

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

offered any explanation for the failure to cooperate and provide
the

discovery.

plaintiff’s

Nothing

failure

circumstances

that

was

would

in

the

record

indicates

that

the

substantially

justified

or

any

make

an

award

of

expenses

unjust.

Therefore, the defendant is entitled to reasonable expenses under
Rule 37(d)(3).

Defendant did not claim a specific amount for the

expenses incurred in filing this motion.

However, a review of the

motion and memorandum supports the conclusion that an award of
$250.00 is reasonable.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions filed by
defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc. is granted.
Plaintiff shall serve his answers to interrogatories, and
produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to the
defendant’s requests for production, without objections, within 14
days. Pursuant to Rule 37(d)(3), the plaintiff shall to pay to the
defendant, within 14 days, its reasonable expenses in the amount of
$250.00.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 18, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3