Griffin v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. et al
ORDER granting 280 Motion for Entry of Agreed Order on ASIC's Motions to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 9/15/16. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
LAKISHA ROCHELLE GRIFFIN a/k/a
LAKISHA ROCHELLE GRIFFIN SORRELS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-00132-DMB-JMV
HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES INC., et al.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lakisha Rochelle Griffin’s and Defendant
American Security Insurance Company’s (“ASIC”) (collectively, the “Parties”) Joint Motion for
Entry of Agreed Order Regarding ASIC’s Motions to Compel [ECF Nos. 260 & 261]. ECF No.
280. Having reviewed the Parties’ Agreed Order, and being otherwise advised in the premises,
the Court hereby GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion, and adopts and enters the Agreed Order on
the terms set forth below.
ASIC’S REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff must respond to ASIC’s Requests for Production of Documents in accordance
with the following:
ASIC’s Requests for Production seek information that is relevant to this matter,
and Plaintiff has not raised a valid objection to the contrary.
Apart from objections as to privilege, all of Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
Plaintiff must represent that she has produced all responsive documents in her
possession, custody, and control after a thorough search, including of Plaintiff’s emails and text
It is improper for Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to ASIC’s Requests
through Eric Hawkins, who purportedly is her former attorney. Plaintiff must represent that she
has performed her own, independent search, including of her emails and other electronicallystored information.
Additionally, Plaintiff must produce all documents that Eric Hawkins
possesses that are responsive because such documents are within Plaintiff’s possession, custody,
If Plaintiff is withholding documents on privilege grounds, Plaintiff must provide
a privilege log listing each withheld document in accordance with the Federal and Local Rules.
Plaintiff must produce all responsive documents in her possession, custody and
control, by way of example, these documents would include, but are not limited to:
a. Plaintiff’s tax returns as sought in ASIC’s Request No. 18, which are available to
Plaintiff immediately at the website https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/request-atranscript-or-copy-of-a-prior-year-tax-return;
b. All documents relating to her assets, liabilities, and net worth, as requested in
ASIC’s Request No. 19, including, but not limited to, bank and other financial
statements, loan applications, mortgage applications, and documents relating to
her 2008 bankruptcy, including schedules;
c. All documents regarding other lawsuits as sought through ASIC’s Request No.
d. All documents (including emails) referring or relating to communications
between Plaintiff and any person regarding this lawsuit (including Eric Hawkins),
the allegations in the complaint, or the facts relating to this lawsuit, as sought
through ASIC’s Request No. 21; and
e. The missing documents and attachments listed in ASIC’s Motions to Compel with
respect to Request Nos. 7 and 24, or, alternatively, provide a written explanation
of why the documents were lost and not retained.
Plaintiff must produce all information responsive to ASIC’s Requests, as well as
any privilege log, by no later than September 27, 2016. Plaintiff’s production must be made in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E), meaning that information must be
produced in a manner that is organized and labeled to correspond to ASIC’s Requests.
Plaintiff must respond to ASIC’s Interrogatories in accordance with the following:
ASIC’s Interrogatories 2-25 seek information that is relevant to this matter, and
Plaintiff has not raised a valid objection to the contrary.
Apart from privilege, all of Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
To the extent that Plaintiff believes information responsive to any Interrogatory is
contained in a document, she must cite to the specific pages, by Bates number, of any such
document and provide an explanation of the information in any such documents that Plaintiff
believes to be responsive. In so doing, Plaintiff may not cite generally to her initial disclosure
documents, expert disclosure and report, or any other group of documents. Likewise, Plaintiff
may not rely on citations to her, or any other witnesses’, deposition testimony.
Plaintiff must provide complete, good faith answers to ASIC’s Interrogatories 2-
25. Plaintiff’s answers must contain the information requested, including the information sought
in each subpart. In order to provide such answers, Plaintiff must make a diligent effort to obtain
and review relevant information and include such information in her responses. To the extent
that, after a diligent search, Plaintiff cannot fully answer an Interrogatory or any subpart,
Plaintiff must respond to the extent she can and state in her response to such Interrogatory the
efforts she made to obtain responsive information. Plaintiff is cautioned that such a response
should only be employed after a diligent and thorough search for information has been
completed and has failed to locate responsive information.
Plaintiff’s complete, good faith answers to ASIC’s Interrogatories 2-25 must be
verified under oath as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3).
Plaintiff must provide ASIC with all her Interrogatory answers, as well as any
privilege log, by no later than September 27, 2016. Plaintiff may not delay providing complete,
good faith answers to ASIC’s Interrogatories on the basis that she allegedly requires discovery
Any failure to comply with this Order, as it pertains to either ASIC’s Requests for
Production or Interrogatories, will result in an Order requiring Plaintiff and/or her counsel to pay
to ASIC the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in preparing and filings its Motions to Compel,
Rebuttals in support, and any additional motions required as a result of her failure to comply
with this Order.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?