Simmons v. Star Enterprises Inc of Morgan City et al

Filing 36

RULING: For the reasons herein, the oral argument on 6/28/2016 is CANCELED, and the pending 30 Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. The associated request for attorney's fees and costs [rec. doc. 30] is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 6/20/2016. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANDREW SIMMONS

*CIVIL NO. 6:15-0082

VERSUS

*JUDGE DOHERTY

STAR ENTERPRISES INC. OF
MORGAN CITY, ET AL.

*MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

RULING
Pending before the court is the Motion to Compel filed by defendants Miss
Karley, Inc. and Heather Lynn, Inc. (collectively "Heather Lynn") on May 16, 2016.
[rec. doc. 30]. Heather Lynn seeks an order directing co-defendant Star Enterprises,
Inc. of Morgan City ("Star"), to provide supplemental discovery responses to Heather
Lynn's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents propounded on
February 11, 2016, as well as attorney's fees and costs in connection with the filing of
the Motion. Star has filed Opposition to which Heather Lynn has filed a Reply. [rec.
docs. 32 and 35]. The motion has been set on the Court’s June 28, 2016 motion
calendar with oral argument, in accord with the Court’s routine procedures for handling
motions.
For the reasons which follow, the oral argument on June 28, 2016 is
CANCELED, and the pending Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part.
The associated request for attorney's fees and costs [rec. doc. 30] is denied.

Star is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4 and
10. Star is to supplement its response to interrogatory 7 for the time frame from
February 2012 until August 2014 only as it applies to maintenance of lighting. The
Court specifically finds the information sought is relevant and proportionate to the
needs of the case.
Star is ordered to provide supplemental responses to requests for production 1, 2,
3, 4, 10, and 12. Star is ordered to supplement its responses to request numbers 7 and
15 for the time frame from February 2012 until August 2014 only as it applies to
maintenance and repair of lighting on the dock.
To the extent Star is withholding any documents or ESI responsive to request
number 23, Star is to provide a privilege log in compliance Rule 26(b)(5). To the extent
Star lodged objections that the requests are “vague, ambiguous, overly broad and
unduly burdensome” are contained in their prior responses, those objections shall be
withdrawn, and if there are any further objections, they SHALL be made with the
specificity required by Rule 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)(B) and (C). Otherwise, all objections
are to be withdrawn.
The Court does not accept a return site inspection four years after the fact to
provide a meaningful alternative to verified responses. If Star has produced all that it
has within is “possession, custody or control,” it shall so designate in its supplemental
responses. The Court specifically emphasizes the disjunctive nature of Rule 34(a)(1)
2

and counsel is directed to the jurisprudence which defines those terms broadly to
include documents or ESI a party has a legal right or practical ability to obtain even if
from an unrelated third party.
In all other respects, the motion is denied. It is further ordered that oral argument
is cancelled.
Signed this 20th day of June, 2016.

________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3