In Re: Stephen Harper as Owner of the M/Y HOLLAND'S ISLAND

Filing 29

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Compel Discovery and 28 Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Hearing. Movants may reassert their motion to compel and seek resolution of such motion on an expedited basis so long as the filing attorney includes an appropria te certificate of service indicating that the motions have been properly served on Mr. Sherwood. The courts denial of the instant motions in no way alters Mr. Sherwood's obligation to provide initial disclosures and respond to discovery requests as may be required pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/28/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: STEPHEN HARPER AS OWNER
OF THE M/Y HOLLAND’S ISLAND

CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER: 15-157-JWD-RLB

ORDER
Before the court is a Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc. 27) and Ex Parte Motion and
Incorporated Memorandum for Expedited Hearing on Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 28) filed by
the Petitioner/Third-Party Defendant Stephen Harper and Third-Party Defendant American
Reliable Insurance Company (collectively “Movants”) on October 23, 2015. These motions
were referred to the undersigned on October 26, 2015.
The Movants represent that the deposition of Third-Party Defendant Brenton Sherwood,
who is proceeding pro se, is scheduled for November 4, 2015. (R. Doc. 28 at 1). In support of
their Motion to Compel, the Movants represent that Mr. Sherwood has not provided initial
disclosures, which were due on September 1, 2015, and has not provided timely responses to
their interrogatories and requests for production. (R. Doc. 27-2 at 2-3). The deadline to complete
non-expert discovery in this action is set for February 5, 2016. (R. Doc. 26 at 1).
While expedited consideration of the Motion to Compel would be appropriate based upon
the Movant’s representations and the approaching discovery deadlines, the court finds it
logistically unfeasible to resolve the Motion to Compel prior to the November 4, 2015
deposition. Mr. Sherwood is proceeding without counsel and, as he has not consented in writing
to accept service by electronic means, the court must provide him a copy of this Order through
mail and provide him an opportunity to respond to the Motion to Compel. Given the timing of
the filings, a resolution of the Motion to Compel cannot be reached prior to November 4, 2015.

Furthermore, upon review of the certificate of service accompanying both the instant
Motion for Expedited Hearing and the Motion to Compel, the respective filings only certify that
those motions were “electronically filed . . . with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF
system.” (R. Doc. 28 at 4); (R. Doc. 27 at 2). While this is a proper method of service of a
motion on parties who have consented to electronic service, “[p]arties who have not consented to
electronic service must be served with a copy of any pleading or other document filed
electronically in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the
administrative procedures.” Local Rule 7(f)(2). There is no indication in the record that these
motions have been served on Mr. Sherwood by a means allowed by Rule 5(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the Movant’s Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 27) and Ex Parte
Motion and Incorporated Memorandum for Expedited Hearing on Motion to Compel (R. Doc.
28) are DENIED. Movants may reassert their motion to compel and seek resolution of such
motion on an expedited basis so long as the filing attorney includes an appropriate certificate of
service indicating that the motions have been properly served on Mr. Sherwood. The court’s
denial of the instant motions in no way alters Mr. Sherwood’s obligation to provide initial
disclosures and respond to discovery requests as may be required pursuant to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 28, 2015.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2