Enclarde v. LA DOTD et al

Filing 27

RULING granting 25 Motion to Compel Discovery. Plaintiff shall also pay to the defendants their reasonable expenses in the amount of $300, by 1/31/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/13/2014. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GEORGE R. ENCLARDE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-56-SCR
LOUISIANA’S (LaDOTD), ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
filed

defendants

Louisiana

Department

of

Transportation

Development, Stephanie Ducote and Kathy Horsfall.

and

Record document

number 25. No opposition or other response has been filed, and the
time to do so has expired.
At issue in this motion are the plaintiff’s responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 and 22, and his
responses

to

the

defendants’

13

requests

for

production

of

documents.
Plaintiffs discovery responses have been reviewed.

For the

reasons stated by the defendants, his responses to the disputed
interrogatories are evasive or vague, or both. Plaintiff failed to
provide detailed information, or he just referred generally to the
five-page, single-spaced SUMMARY OF FINDINGS filed as part of his
Complaint.
As to the document requests, the plaintiff’s objections are

meritless and his responses are meaningless.1

Also, the plaintiff

has apparently failed produce the documents he indicated he would
produce.
Defendants also sought an award of expenses incurred in
connection with this motion.

Plaintiffs responses and objections

were not substantially justified and no circumstances make an award
of expenses unjust.2

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the defendants

are awarded their reasonable expenses.

Defendants did not submit

anything in support of a particular amount of expenses.

A review

of the defendants’ motion and supporting materials supports finding
that the amount of $300 is reasonable.
Accordingly,

the

Responses is granted.

defendants’

Motion

to

Compel

Discovery

Plaintiff shall serve supplemental answers

to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 and 22, and
produce all documents responsive to the defendants’s Request for
Production of Documents, by January 24, 2014.

Failure to do so may

result in the plaintiff being prohibited from using, in connection
with any motion or at trial, any information and documents not
provided or produced.3

Plaintiff shall also pay to the defendants

1

For example, the plaintiff objected to producing his tax
returns. These would be relevant to his claims for lost wages,
back pay and front pay.
2

The fact that the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
does not shield him from a monetary discovery sanction.
3

Rule

37(b)(2)(A),

Fed.R.Civ.P.

(also

providing that
(continued...)

their reasonable expenses in the amount of $300, by January 31,
2014.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 13, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

(...continued)
alternative or additional sanctions may be imposed).