Stallings v. Wayne County, Mississippi et al

Filing 66

ORDER granting 61 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 16, 2020. (MMc)

Case 2:18-cv-00066-KS-MTP Document 66 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRIS STALLINGS and
STALLINGS CONSTRUCTION LLC

PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-66-KS-MTP

WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [61].
Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that the Motion should be granted.
Plaintiffs filed this matter on April 16, 2018. Plaintiffs own a dirt and gravel business
and allege that several county officials provide dirt and gravel to private citizens, at the county’s
expense, to curry favor in political elections. Plaintiffs served their Interrogatories [55] and
Requests for Production [56] on November 15, 2019. Defendants belatedly responded to the
Requests for Production on February 12, 2020 and to the Interrogatories on March 19, 2020.
On March 17, 2020, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference with the parties
and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to compel, which Plaintiffs did on March 20, 2020.
On April 6, 2020, Defendants supplemented their responses to the Request for Production [56]
and filed a Response [64] to the Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs filed their Reply [65] on April 14,
2020. This matter is ripe for review.
The Court applies the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil 26(b)(1) which allows
for discovery of material that is proportional to the needs of the case and non-privileged. The
party that resists discovery “must show specifically how each interrogatory is not relevant or
how each question is overbroad, burdensome or oppressive.” McLeod, Alexander, Powel &
1 

Case 2:18-cv-00066-KS-MTP Document 66 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 5

Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Josephs v. Harris Corp.,
677 F.2d 985, 991-92 (3d Cir. 1982)). Simply responding that an interrogatory or request for
production is overbroad or not relevant, without more, is “not adequate to voice a successful
objection to an interrogatory.” Id.
Discovery is “to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment to effect [its] purposes of
adequately informing litigants in civil trials.” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979). “At
some point, however, discovery yields diminishing returns, needlessly increases expenses, and
delays the resolution of the parties’ dispute.” Willis v. City of Hattiesburg, 2016 WL 918038, at
*2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 10, 2016). Discovery disputes are left to the discretion of the trial court.
Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979).
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to respond to three interrogatories and three
requests for production relating to the county’s gravel and dirt distributions, equipment owned by
the county that transports dirt and gravel, and communication between county employees
regarding the transportation of dirt and gravel. Defendants initially responded with a
“boilerplate” objection that the interrogatories and requests were vague, over broad, unduly
burdensome, and protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.
In their Response [64], Defendants assert they have made efforts to obtain responsive
information, but that Wayne County’s server “crashed” at some undefined point and they have
been unable to electronically locate any responsive documents. Defendants’ attorneys then
assisted the county attorney on three occasions to review the physical records at the Wayne
County Circuit Courthouse. These efforts have only yielded a handful of documents, and
Defendants argue that they should be relieved of any further obligation to sift through their paper

2 

Case 2:18-cv-00066-KS-MTP Document 66 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 5

records because it is too burdensome and the County’s information technology specialists have
been unable to restore the computer server.
Defendants did not specifically address any of the disputed interrogatories and requests
for production in their Response [64], and it remains unclear what is still in dispute following
Defendants supplementation. Plaintiffs’ Reply [65] asserts that Defendants did not supplement
any of the interrogatories at issue and the supplemental response to the requests for production
do not definitively state whether the requested documents exist or not.
The Court finds that the information requested in the disputed interrogatories and
requests for production is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and proportional to the needs of the case.1
The county’s use of gravel and dirt, along with the use of equipment to transport any gravel and
dirt, is essential to Plaintiffs’ claims, and Plaintiffs have been unable to proceed with depositions
without more information regarding which employees handled the dirt and gravel. The only
question is whether the retrieval of these documents or answering the interrogatories is now too
burdensome.
Defendants have not explained when the server will be restored, saying only that
restoring the server “is taking much longer than anticipated.” They have also not explained or
addressed the expense involved to retain other IT specialists to resolve the problem. Without that
information the Court cannot determine if such efforts would be unduly burdensome or costly.
See Hopkins v. Sumrall Holdings, Inc., 2020 WL 1698353, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 18, 2020).
Nor is it clear why a thorough manual review cannot be conducted and why county employees

1

Defendants objections based on attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine
were not addressed in Defendants’ Response and appear to have been asserted without any merit.
If any responsive documents are privileged, Defendants should produce a privilege log pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). 
3 

Case 2:18-cv-00066-KS-MTP Document 66 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 5

have not done so already. “Defendant[s] must produce specific evidence that each challenged
discovery request causes it to incur an actual and undue burden.” Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc.,
227 F.R.D. 475, 478 (N.D. Tex. 2005).
Without any supporting affidavits or specific information regarding the cost of restoring
the computer server, retrieving the electronic documents, or manually searching the paper
documents, the Court cannot conclude that the discovery requests at issue are overly
burdensome. Therefore, Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that the
production of relevant discovery is too burdensome.
Additionally, it is far too late in the process for Wayne County to lodge objections to the
breadth or scope of the discovery requests. As noted in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ have
waived the opportunity to object to discovery requests by responding out of time. Mot. [61] at 6;
In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989). Here, Wayne County waited three to
four months to respond and then raised only general, boilerplate objections. These objections are
late, unsupported, unspecified, and overruled. In some cases, the objections are plainly
frivolous. For example, Wayne County has objected to providing the names of equipment
operators or to providing mileage logs for dump trucks based on attorney-client privilege. The
privilege does not apply to facts. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Harried, 2010 WL 583938, at *2
(S.D. Miss. Feb. 16, 2010). To put it succinctly, Wayne County’s approach to discovery is
unacceptable. If it continues to evade its discovery obligations, sanctions will be imposed.
Wayne County has generally referred to recent difficulties in producing records during
the current Covid-19 pandemic. No details are provided, and it is not immediately clear from the
County’s response how reviewing records or answering written interrogatories creates

4 

Case 2:18-cv-00066-KS-MTP Document 66 Filed 04/16/20 Page 5 of 5

unnecessary risks or runs afoul of current restrictions. And it should be noted that the responses
at issue were due months before the current pandemic.2
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [61] is GRANTED
and Defendants shall comply with the Court’s directives, as set forth above. Defendants are
directed to fully respond to Interrogatories No. 4, No. 5, and No. 8 and Requests for Production
No. 3, No.4, and No. 8 on or before April 30, 2019. The Court declines, at this time, to award
Plaintiffs’ the cost of filing the Motion [61], as requested in in their Reply [65]. Continued
evasive behavior and unsupported objections will result in sanctions.
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of April, 2020.
s/Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

2

This is not to suggest in any way that the current pandemic and applicable restrictions
are to be disregarded or that anyone should incur an unnecessary risk to comply with discovery
obligations. 
5