Parker v. Protein Products

Filing 19

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Compel. Signed by Jane M Virden on 5/232012. (sef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

PERRY PARKER
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE No.: 4:11cv95-GHD-JMV

PROTEIN PRODUCTS

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This matter is before the court on motion of the defendant to compel sufficient responses
to defendant’s first set of interrogatories and request for production (# 18). The plaintiff has not
filed a response to the motion. With its motion, the defendant provides that:
1.

On February 1, 2012 this court entered a case management order setting a discovery
deadline of August 1, 2012 and a motions deadline of August 15, 2012. Included in that
order, the court instructed plaintiff to execute and supply defendant with a waiver of
medical privilege, due to plaintiff’s emotional distress and damages claims.

2.

On February 13, 2012 the defendant served plaintiff with first set of interrogatories and
requests for production of documents, including medical releases addressed in the case
management order.

3.

On March 26, 2012 defense counsel wrote plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses to
interrogatories and requests for production. Two days later, plaintiff’s counsel responded
by e-mail stating he would send responses by mid-April 2012, making them a month
overdue. Plaintiff’s counsel never requested an extension of time.

4.

On April 16, 2012 defense counsel sent a second letter requesting responses to the first
set of interrogatories and requests for production. In response to this letter, on April 20,
2012, plaintiff’s counsel contacted the defense and requested a two week extension, to

which defense counsel agreed, up to and including May 2, 2012.
5.

On May 1, 2012 plaintiff’s counsel contacted the defense to request a Word version of the
discovery requests and defense counsel complied.

6.

On May 3, 2012 plaintiff’s counsel e-mailed responses to the interrogatories but did not
include any documents related to the case. Defense counsel challenges that responses to
requests for production 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19, 23 and 24 and that responses to
Interrogatories 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 are insufficient, non-responsive and evasive.
After reviewing the responses, the court agrees.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

The plaintiff is hereby ordered to provide sufficient responses to the discovery requests detailed
in the defendants’ motion by June 1, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), the plaintiff will pay to
the defendant the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees caused by his failure to comply
with an order of the court and his failure to respond to the discovery propounded. The defendant
will provide to the court a detailed explanation of the costs, expenses, and fees incurred as a
result of filing the present motion.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May 2012.

/s/Jane M. Virden
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE