Melancon v. Ascension Parish Sheriff Office et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 43 Motion to Sequester Records and 44 Motion to Compel and Sequester Records. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (R. Docs. 34 and 40), and file a copy thereof into the record of this proceeding, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The 46 Motion for Sanctions is hereby DENIED at this juncture. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 4/21/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WAYNE A. MELANCON, JR. (#157797)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
ASCENSION PARISH SHERIFF OFFICE, ET AL.

NO. 14-0486-JJB-EWD

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Sequester Records (R. Doc. 43), Motion to
Compel and Sequester Records (R. Doc. 44), and Motion … for Sanctions (R. Doc. 46).

The

Court interprets these motions as essentially seeking to compel responses to discovery from
Defendants.

These motions are not opposed.

In August 2015, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Production of Documents to Defendants’
attorney of record (R. Doc. 34). Plaintiff requested therein a copy of “any and all paperwork,
medical and non medical records from the Ascension Parish Jail/Sheriff’s Office about me Wayne
A. Melancon Jr.” Plaintiff subsequently propounded Interrogatories to defendants (R. Doc. 40),
wherein he apparently sought information and/or documentation regarding specific administrative
grievances that he had submitted to personnel at the Ascension Parish Jail in 2013 and 2014.

The

record does not reflect that any formal objection or responses were filed by Defendants to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests.1

Instead, there is a single item of correspondence addressed to

Plaintiff from Defendants’ attorney, dated October 1, 2015 (R. Doc. 45), wherein the attorney
stated that he was enclosing (1) copies of medical records obtained by Defendants pursuant to a

1 In this regard, the Court ordered the parties to file all discovery requests and responses
into the record of this matter. See R. Doc. 13.

medical records deposition of Prevost Memorial Hospital, and (2) copies of certain administrative
grievance forms that Plaintiff had requested and that were allegedly responsive to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13. The referenced correspondence further stated that “[t]he
defendants are not in possession of the other items requested in Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, and 15.” This correspondence, however, does not constitute a proper response to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests and, in any event, to the extent that the correspondence may loosely
be interpreted as such a response, the Court notes that, by failing to attach and file the referenced
medical records and grievance forms in the record, Defendants have failed to comply with the
Court’s Order of December 11, 2014 (R. Doc. 13), which directed that “all discovery … responses
shall be filed in the record of this matter.”
The Court is faced with competing considerations in connection with Plaintiff’s pending
motions.

On one hand, these motions are procedurally deficient because they do not include

certificates of service2 and do not include certification, as required by Rule 37(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ.
P., that Plaintiff has conferred or attempted to confer with opposing counsel in a good faith attempt
to resolve the discovery dispute without Court intervention.

On the other hand, the docket

reflects that Defendants have provided no formal response or objection whatever in connection
with Plaintiff’s discovery requests, nor have Defendants sought an extension of time to respond
thereto, nor have Defendants submitted any response or opposition to Plaintiff’s instant motions
to compel and for sanctions.

In the Court’s view, these omissions by Defendants weigh in favor

of granting Plaintiff’s motions notwithstanding the noted procedural deficiencies.

Further,

inasmuch as a failure to timely respond to a discovery request generally waives any objections that

2 Notwithstanding the absence of a certificate of service, the Docket Sheet reflects that
Defendants’ attorney was served by electronic transmission with notification of plaintiff’s
discovery requests and the instant motions to compel and for sanctions.

a party may have to such request, it would be an exercise in futility for the Court to deny Plaintiff’s
motions and require that he first confer with opposing counsel in an attempt to obtain appropriate
responses.

Notwithstanding, the Court further finds that the imposition of sanctions is not

appropriate at this time and will not penalize Defendants for failing to previously respond to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Sequester Records (R. Doc. 43) and Motion
to Compel and Sequester Records (R. Doc. 44) are hereby GRANTED, and Defendants shall
respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (R. Docs. 34 and
40), and file a copy thereof into the record of this proceeding, within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion … for Sanctions (R. Doc. 46) is
hereby DENIED at this juncture.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 21, 2016.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE