Nyamira et al v. Little Kampala Services, LLC et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/1/2018. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
STEVE NYAMIRA, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 17-3379

:
LITTLE KAMPALA SERVICES, LLC,
et al.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution is Plaintiffs
Steve
compel.

Nyamira

and

Douglas

(ECF No. 20).

Ominde

(“Plaintiffs”)

motion

to

For the following reasons, the motion

will be granted.
Plaintiffs sent Defendants Little Kampala Services, LLC,
Trudy

Kaliisa-Ofwono,

interrogatories

and

January 31, 2018.

and

requests

Paul
for

Ofwono

production

(“Defendants”)
of

documents

on

On April 19, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a

letter, via U.S. First Class Mail, and an email setting forth
their objections to Defendants’ responses to discovery.

The

letter requested that Defendants contact Plaintiffs by April 26
to discuss the discovery disputes.
27,

because

Defendants

refused

to

Defendants with a motion to compel.

(ECF No. 20-1).
respond,

On April

Plaintiffs

(ECF No. 20-2).

did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

served

Defendants
On May 11,

Plaintiffs sent Defendants an email to remind them that the

completed

responses

were

due

that

day.

Defendants did not respond to the email.

(ECF

No.

20-3).

On May 14, Plaintiffs

called Defendants concerning the status of their responses to
the Motion to Compel.

Defendants informed Plaintiffs that he

was sick, and Plaintiffs agreed to extend the deadline for a
response to the motion to compel until May 19.

(ECF No. 20-4).

Defendants did not file a Response to the Motion to Compel
by May 19, 2018.
informing

them

On May 21, Plaintiffs sent Defendants an email
that

Plaintiffs

Defendants did not respond.
respond.

would

(ECF No. 20-5).

Court

relief

if

Defendants did not

On May 22, Plaintiffs moved to compel Defendants to

provide complete discovery responses.
I.

seek

(ECF No. 20).

Discovery Standards
Pursuant

to

Fed.R.Civ.P

26(b)(1),

“Parties

may

obtain

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense[.]”
from

an

opposing

party

by

A party can obtain discovery

serving

an

interrogatory.

An

interrogatory “must, to the extent it is not objected to, be
answered

separately

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3).

and

fully

in

writing

under

oath.”

If a party has an objection, the party

must specifically state the grounds.

Rule 33(b)(4).

Any ground

not specifically “stated in a timely objection is waived[.]”
Id.

2

Parties can also obtain discovery by requesting that the
opposing

party

inspected.

produce

documents

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

or

allow

documents

to

be

Under Rule 34, once one party

requests the production of a document, the other party must
respond

either

by

producing

the

document,

inspection, or objecting to the production.

allowing

its

Under Rule 34, “An

objection must state whether any responsive materials are being
withheld on the basis of that objection.”

When documents are

produced, the producing party “must organize and label them to
correspond

to

the

categories

in

the

request[.]”

Rule

34(b)(2)(E)(i).
II.

Analysis
Each Plaintiff’s first interrogatory to each Defendant was

identical.

Interrogatory

identification

of

all

No.

1

documents

affirmative defenses and denials.

requests
that

all

support

facts

and

Defendants’

In response, regarding both

Plaintiff Nyamira and Plaintiff Ominde, Defendants stated that
Plaintiffs “ha[ve] been paid all wages earned by him at Little
Kampala[,]” and “Defendants Kaliissa-Ofwono and Paul Ofwono . .
. were merely acting as agents for a disclosed principal, Little
Kampala.”

(ECF No. 20-2, at 6).

facts

support

to

their

Defendants did not provide

affirmative

defenses

specifically identify responding documents.
stated,

“Relevant

documents

are
3

attached

and

did

not

Instead, Defendants
to

Little

Kampala’s

Response to Production” without identifying which documents are
responsive to this particular interrogatory.

(Id.).

Defendants

did not provide a complete answer to Interrogatory No. 1 and
must do so.
Each Plaintiff’s third interrogatory to Defendant Little
Kampala and second interrogatory to Defendants Kaliisa-Ofwono
and Ofwono were identical.

These interrogatories stated that if

Defendants do not have in their custody or control any of the
specific documents requested, they must identify who has current
custody or control over the document, provide an explanation why
Defendants are no longer in control, and state the date that
Defendants surrendered custody.
responses,

stating

“All

Defendants provided identical

documents

in

custody,

control

or

possession of Defendant are attached to Defendant’s Response to
Requests for Production.”

(ECF No. 20-2, at 19).

Each Plaintiff’s seventh interrogatory to Defendant Little
Kampala was identical. Interrogatory No. 7 requests all facts
and identification of all documents evidencing the hours worked
by each Plaintiff, each Plaintiff’s hourly pay rate, and each
Plaintiff’s total pay received each work week.

Defendant Little

Kampala provided identical responses for each Plaintiff, stating
“See attached documents in Defendant’s Response to Requests for
Production.”

(ECF No. 20-2, at 8).

Defendant Little Kampala

did not provide any narrative in response to Plaintiffs’ request
4

and did not identify which specific documents are responsive.
Defendant Little Kampala did not provide a complete answer to
Interrogatory No. 7 and must do so.
Each Plaintiff’s eighth interrogatory to Defendant Little
Kampala was identical.
explanation

and

Interrogatory No. 8 requests a detailed

identification

of

all

relevant

documents

relating to Defendant Little Kampala’s policies for recording,
tracking, and monitoring Plaintiffs’ hours worked.
Defendant

Little

“responsible
worked.

for

Kampala

stated

clock[ing]

in

that

[and

each

In response,

Plaintiff

clocking]

out

of

All times are recorded by [the] POS system.”

20-2, at 8).

This is not a complete answer.

Kampala

not

did

responsive.

identify

which

was

shifts

(ECF No.

Defendant Little

specific

documents

are

Defendant Little Kampala must provide a complete

answer to Interrogatory No. 8.
Each Plaintiff’s ninth interrogatory to Defendant Little
Kampala was identical.

Interrogatory No. 9 requests a detailed

description

and

identification

relating

any

technology

to

applicable time period.

that

of

all

relevant

Defendant

used

documents
during

the

In response, Defendant Little Kampala

identified the POS system and stated that “Shifts worked and
goods sold were recorded.”

(ECF No. 20-2, at 8).

This response

does not provide the details that Plaintiffs request.

Defendant

Little Kampala did not identify which specific documents are
5

responsive.

Defendant Little Kampala did not provide a complete

answer to Interrogatory No. 9 and must do so.
Each Plaintiff’s fifteenth interrogatory to Little Kampala
was identical.

Interrogatory No. 15 requests, for every day

that each Plaintiff worked for Defendant, the amount of tips
each

Plaintiff

earned,

and

any

responsive

documents.

In

response to Plaintiff Nyamira, Defendant Little Kampala stated
that “All tips were paid in cash to [Nyamira] at the end of each
shift.”
the

(ECF No. 20-2, at 13).

information

that

This response did not provide

Plaintiffs

sought.

Defendant

Little

Kampala did not identify particular responsive documents.

In

response to Plaintiff Ominde, Defendant Little Kampala stated
“See #5.”

(Id.).

Defendant Little Kampala did not provide a

complete answer to either Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 15 and
must do so.
Each Plaintiff’s sixteenth interrogatory to Little Kampala
was

identical.

alleges
claims

there
for

supporting

is

unpaid
the

documents.

Interrogatory
a

bona

fide

wages,

belief

No.

a

and

16

dispute

detailed

requests,
to

any

statement

identification

of

if

of

Defendant

Plaintiffs’

of
all

all

facts

supporting

In response, regarding Plaintiff Nyamira, Defendant

Little Kampala stated that Plaintiff Nyamira “is not owed any
wages.
[money]

Rather, [Nyamira] is gaming the system trying to extort
from

[Little

Kampala]
6

after

claiming

workers’

compensation.”
did

not

(ECF No. 20-2, at 13).

provide

any

demonstrating

that

Kampala

also

stated

wages”

without

Moreover,
which

all

documents

are

for

wages

that

providing

Defendant

Plaintiff.

support

Little

were

Plaintiff
any

its

statement

paid.

to

or

facts

Defendant

Ominde

specific

Kampala

responsive

Defendant Little Kampala

“is

not

Little

owed

support.

did

not

the

requests

any

(Id.).

explicitly
from

state
either

Defendant Little Kampala must explicitly state which

documents are responsive to these requests.
In

response

to

each

of

the

requests

for

production,

Defendants provided identical answers stating “Subject to the
general objections, see attached documents numbered P1 through
P27.”

(ECF No. 20-2, at 6).

Defendants did not state which

documents are responsive to each particular request and did not
state

whether

production.

particular
This

leaves

documents
Plaintiffs

were
guessing

withheld
as

to

from
which

documents are responsive to each request and whether responsive
documents

were

withheld.

If

applicable,

for

each

request,

Defendants must explicitly state that all responsive documents
have

been

produced.

Accordingly,

Defendants

must

provide

complete answers which identify specific documents for each of
Plaintiffs’ request for production.

7

III. Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Motion to Compel filed by
Plaintiffs Steve Nyamira and Douglas Ominde will be granted.
separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

8

A