Van v. Progressive Gulf Insurance Company et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 7/14/2015. (ACF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVE VAN

PLAINTIFF

V.

3:14-CV-469-HTW-LRA

PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Complete Answers to
Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production of Documents [27], along with
Defendant’s response [28, 29]. Plaintiff propounded discovery to Defendant on October
30, 2014, and received “wholly unresponsive and improper answers” to the discovery on
March 19, 2015. He corresponded with counsel opposite on May 6, 2015, regarding his
objections to the responses and requesting supplementation. No supplementation was
received, and Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 15, 2015.
Defendant contends that the motion is not timely filed, as discovery ended on June
12, 2015, and the motion was not filed sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline
for a ruling to be obtained and additional discovery provided, if ordered. It cites Local
Rule 7(b)(2)(B), requiring that “[a] party must file a discovery motion sufficiently in
advance of the discovery deadline to allow response to the motion, ruling by the court and
time to effectuate the court’s order before the discovery deadline.” Defendant also cites
numerous cases supporting the proposition that a Court must have sufficient time to rule
on a motion to compel and for the parties to effectuate the ruling prior to the close of

discovery. See, e.g., Wells v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 203 F.R.D. 240, 241 (S. D. Miss.
2001); Gueniot-Kornegay v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 3:10cv429-TSLMTP, 2013 WL 160259, at *1 (S.D. Miss., Jan. 15, 2013); Issaquena and Warren
Counties Land Co., LLC v. Warren County, Miss. Bd. of Supervisors, et al, Civil Action
No. 5:07cv106-DCB-JMR, 2011 WL 6092450, at *5 (S.D. Miss., Dec. 7, 2011); Chatman
v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, Civil Action No. 2:09cv200-KS-MTP, 2010 WL 4876918, at 1
(S.D. Miss., Nov. 24, 2010); Seiferth v. Helicopteros Aturneros, Civil Action No.
4:03cv463-P-B, 2008 WL 5234416, at *1 (N.D. Miss., Dec. 12, 2008).
Rule 7(b)(2)(B) does apply in situations such as the one now before the Court.
However, if a party shows good cause for the delay, and under certain factual
circumstances, the Court may waive the applicability of the rule. The rule may
sometimes be waived if the opposite party does not object on this basis. However,
Plaintiff has not shown reasons for his delay in filing the motion to compel. Nor did he
file a reply arguing that the Court should not apply the local rule in his case.
More importantly, the motion does not comply with Local Rule 37(b). Although
Plaintiff charges that the responses were inadequate, he does not quote the requests or
responses and provides the Court with absolutely no reasons for his claims of
insufficiency. The Court has no access to the discovery, or the responses, and would be
unable to consider the motion on the pleadings, even if timely. Rule 37 requires that the
motion quote verbatim each request and response at issue and give the basis for
compulsion.
2

Because the motion does not comply with Local Rule 37(b), and the Court does
not know the specific discovery requests, or responses, at issue, and because the motion is
untimely under Local Rule 7(b)(2)(B), the motion is HEREBY DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 14th day of July 2015.

/s/ Linda R. Anderson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3