Parker v. The United States of America

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part 13 MOTION to Compel (Motion for Order Compelling Discovery Responses from Plaintiff, Rakia Parker) filed by The United States of America. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 1/17/2017. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RAKIA PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. PJM-16-1052

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant, the United States of America, submits before this Court its Motion to Compel
Discovery (“the Motion”) (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff Rakia Parker has not filed a response in
opposition to the Motion. The Court has reviewed the Motion and applicable law. No hearing is
deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons presented below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART the Motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court hereby adopts the factual and procedural background laid out in the
Memorandum Opinion for this case dated December 20, 2016 (ECF No. 16). On December 20,
2016, the Court denied without prejudice the Motion for failure to comply with the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 104.7. Defendant filed a Certificate of Compliance
with Local Rule 104.7 on January 3, 2017 (ECF No. 17), detailing Defendant’s attempts to
confer with Plaintiff. The Certificate of Compliance satisfies both Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and
Local Rule 104.7, and the Motion has properly been filed.

1

DISCUSSION
Defendant served Plaintiff with twenty-five (25) Interrogatories and twenty-four (24)
Requests for Production of Documents (ECF No. 13, Ex.1-2). Defendant alleges the following:
(1) “Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to the Interrogatories served by Defendant on
September 30, 2016;” (2) “Plaintiff supplied deficient responses to Requests for Production Nos.
2, 3, 6, 13, 18-19, 21, and 24;” and (3) “Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s request for
her to sign a Medical Records Authorization” (ECF No. 17, p. 3-4).
I.

Interrogatories
The Court grants the Motion with respect to all requested Interrogatories except the

following:
Interrogatory No. 7
The Court DENIES IN PART this request as being overbroad. The subject motor vehicle
collision occurred in 2014. Defendant’s interrogatory is limited to a period of five years.
II.

Request for Production of Documents
The Court grants the Motion1 with respect to all requested Production of Documents.

III.

Medical Records Authorization
The Court DENIES Defendant’s unnumbered request for Plaintiff to sign authorizations

to release Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff may elect to do so or produce responsive medical
records. However, the failure to produce all responsive documents will likely result in adverse
consequences regarding any hearings or at the trial on the merits.

1

As modified by Defendant’s Certificate of Compliance (ECF No. 17).
2

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion with the exceptions
discussed above.

January 17, 2017

/s/
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge

CBD/xl

3