Hill et al v. Geo Group Inc et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion to Compel; denying 79 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes on 11/18/2020. (crt,Tice, Y)

Case 1:18-cv-01363-DCJ-JPM Document 91 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 836

d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
KENNETH HILL ET AL,
Plaintiff

CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:18-CV-01363
LEAD

VERSUS
GEO GROUP INC ET AL,
Defendants

JUDGE JOSEPH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel production of insurance policy
documents filed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 79. Defendants collectively oppose. The Court
conducted oral argument today, and during that argument, Defendants also
requested clarification of or adjustment to certain pretrial deadlines.
For reasons detailed below and more fully on the record, the Motion to Compel
(ECF No. 79) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks production of additional
insurance policies or documents subject to disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)-(b).
The Court construes Defendants’ request for deadline clarifications as a MOTION TO
ALTER the Court’s previous orders regarding deadlines. That Motion is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.
Regarding the Motion to Compel, Defendants’ obligation to disclose
discoverable insurance policies was not disputed. The scope of that production, and
of the search preceding that production, was disputed. Defendants effectively argue

1

Case 1:18-cv-01363-DCJ-JPM Document 91 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 837

that they have “produced what they have,” and that more may be unresponsive or
redundant. That argument does not abide, particularly in this context.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, parties must produce more than the documents
within their immediate control, and must invest more than a passing effort to satisfy
initial disclosure and discovery obligations. Rules 26 and 34 seek clear efficiencies,
the foremost of which is to preclude orders like this one and prevent expenditures
like those required to get it.
Specifically, Rule 34 “contemplates a party's legal right or practical ability to
obtain the materials from a nonparty to the action. . . . A party also is charged with
knowledge of what its agents know or what is in records available to it.” Ocean Sky

Int'l, L.L.C. v. LIMU Co., L.L.C., No. 3:18-CV-00528, 2020 WL 4927516, at *3 (W.D.
La. Aug. 21, 2020) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In practice, “a

reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things
exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding party should so state with sufficient
specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable
inquiry and exercised due diligence.” See Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567,
578 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Thus, IT IS ORDERED that, within 14 days of the date of this Order,
Defendants will:
1.

reasonably search Defendants’ own records, and reasonably inquire as
to the records of others (including Defendants’ insurer and broker) as

2

Case 1:18-cv-01363-DCJ-JPM Document 91 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 838

to any responsive insurance policies or documents, considering the
reasonable range of judgments and relevant time periods at issue;
2.

produce any responsive insurance policies and documents to Plaintiffs;
and

3.

provide a certified narrative response to counsel for Plaintiffs that the
Rule 34 inquiry has been appropriately made; that responsive policies
and documents have been produced, and; other potential policies or
documents that may have provided coverage, if any, have been
considered and excluded as non-responsive.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, in all other respects, the Motion to Compel
(ECF No. 79) is DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No.
79) IS DENIED, as Defendats’ opposition – though attenuated in some measures –
was justified to the extent necessary to avoid penalties. However, any additional
withholding or parsing on Defendants’ part which delays appropriate production will
result in the imposition of attorney’s fees awards, among other penalties.
As to Defendants’ request for clarification, there does appear to be some need
to clarify and to make minor adjustments to these pretrial deadlines. These deadlines
will no doubt be the last set before trial, and will govern complex, challenging
litigation steps in the coming months. Therefore, the Motion to Alter is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

3

Case 1:18-cv-01363-DCJ-JPM Document 91 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 839

The Jury Trial remains set for April 12, 2021. The Pretrial Conference remains
set for February 23, 2021.

All deadlines without noted changes below remain

set. The other governing pretrial deadlines are:
DATE

DEADLINE

April 5, 2021

Bench Books

April 5, 2021

Real Time Glossary

February 26, 2021

Dispositive Motions

February 26, 2021

Daubert Motions

February 12, 2021

Expert Depositions

February 12, 2021

Pretrial Order

February 12, 2021

Trial Depositions

February 5, 2021

Discovery Deadline

February 5, 2021

Motions in Limine (RESET by this Order)

January 20, 2021

Pretrial Order Meeting of Counsel

January 13, 2021

Defendant’s Expert Reports (RESET by this Order)

SIGNED on Tuesday, November 17, 2020.
_______________________________________
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4