Williams v. Aramark Services, Inc.
Filing
19
ORDER denying 16 Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 12/10/2015. (NLT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RUSSIA WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-705-JJB-RLB
ARAMARK SERVICES, INC.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests (R.
Doc. 16) filed on November 10, 2015. The Motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 17). Plaintiff has
submitted a Reply. (R. Doc. 18).1
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks an order (1) compelling Defendant to provide complete
responses to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents; (2) overruling
certain objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and
requests for admission; (3) and awarding attorney’s fees to Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 16-1 at 14-15).
Although it is unclear when the discovery at issue was propounded, there is no dispute that
Defendant provided its responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests on July 17, 2015. (R.
Doc. 16-3 at 19). On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to defense counsel regarding
various “objections and observations concerning the discovery responses” and scheduled a
discovery conference to be held the next day. (R. Doc. 16-4). Plaintiff’s Motion contains a Rule
37 certification verifying that Plaintiff’s counsel “conducted a telephone conference with both
counsel for [Defendant] by telephone concerning the discovery responses” but was unable to
resolve the issues presented in the Motion. (R. Doc. 16 at 2-3).
1
Plaintiff attached to her Reply memorandum a motion for leave to file the Reply. (R. Doc. 18-1). IT IS
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave is GRANTED, and the Reply is deemed filed into the
record.
In opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion is untimely and baseless. (R. Doc. 17 at
4-7). Defendant argues that the Motion is untimely because it was not filed by the discovery
deadline or otherwise as allowed by Local Rule 26(d)(1). (R. Doc. 17 at 4-5). Defendant
represents that although certain objections based on privilege were made to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests, each of the discovery requests were responded to the best of Defendant’s “ability and
knowledge” and “[n]othing was withheld on grounds of privilege or otherwise.” (R. Doc. 17 at 56).
Pursuant to Local Rule 26(d)(1), “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, no motions relating
to discovery, including motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 29, and 37, shall be filed after the
expiration of the discovery deadline, unless they are filed within seven days after the discovery
deadline and pertain to conduct during the final seven days of discovery.” LR 26(d)(1). The
deadline to complete non-expert discovery in this action, and to file all related discovery
motions, expired on November 2, 2015. (R. Doc. 8).2 Plaintiff filed the instant motion on
November 10, 2015, eight days after the expiration of the discovery deadline. Accordingly, the
Motion is untimely pursuant to this court’s scheduling order and Local Rule 26(d)(1). See also
Price v. Maryland Cas. Co., 561 F.2d 609, 611 (5th Cir. 1977) (denying motion to compel filed
after the close of discovery where party had been “inexcusably dilatory in his efforts”); Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Investments, 237 F.R.D. 395, 396-99 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (motion to
compel was untimely filed two weeks after the discovery deadline; motion should have been
filed within discovery deadline); Wells v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 203 F.R.D. 240, 241 (S.D.
2
On October 27, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to extent all pre-trial deadlines through the deadline
to file dispositive motions. (R. Doc. 14). The sole reason for requesting these extensions provided in the
motion was that Plaintiff’s deposition had not yet been taken. (R. Doc. 14 at 2). The court granted this
motion in part for the sole purpose of extending the non-expert discovery deadline to November 20, 2015
“in order to allow the parties to schedule and take the deposition of the Plaintiff.” (R. Doc. 15 at 3).
2
Miss. 2001) (“[I]f the conduct of a respondent to discovery necessitates a motion to compel, the
requester of the discovery must protect himself by timely proceeding with the motion to compel.
If he fails to do so, he acts at his own peril.”)).
The court finds no exceptional circumstances for concluding that the Motion should be
considered on the merits. Plaintiff was provided with the discovery responses at issue on July
17, 2015. Plaintiff’s counsel raised various “objections and observations” concerning those
discovery responses to defense counsel on August 6, 2015, and scheduled a discovery conference
for the next day. There is simply no indication that Plaintiff acted diligently in filing the instant
Motion over three months later and after the deadline to do so had expired. The joint motion for
extension of the pre-trial deadlines did not mention Plaintiff’s desire to file a motion to compel
regarding written discovery responses.3 Furthermore, nothing in the court’s order dated October
30, 2015 precluded Plaintiff from filing a timely motion to compel on or before the discovery
deadline of November 2, 2015.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is
DENIED. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 10, 2015.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff’s counsel represents that he did not agree to file the joint motion for an extension of time. (R.
Doc. 18 at 2 n.2). He further represents that he was surprised that the joint motion was not granted, and
that he had intended on taking a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant or the deposition of Defendant’s
employee who signed the interrogatory responses provided. (R. Doc. 18 at 2 and n.2). As stated above,
the sole reason provided in the joint motion for an extension of time was Defendant’s need for additional
time to schedule and take the deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not file a motion seeking an extension
of the discovery deadline, whether joint or not, indicating her desire for additional time to schedule and
take the deposition of Defendant and/or its employees. Nothing in the court’s order dated October 30,
2015, or the instant Order, precludes Plaintiff from filing a motion seeking additional time to conduct
such depositions upon a showing of good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
3
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?