Robinson v. Bridgewater Owners Association, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 42 Motion to Extend Deadline; granting 24 Motion to Compel; Amending Case Management Order 11 . Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 8/4/17 (RBM) Modified on 8/8/2017 (RBM). Modified on 8/8/2017 (RBM).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABBY ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND D/B/A NEW ENGLAND CONTRACTORS, LLC
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-794-DPJ-FKB
BRIDGEWATER OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., MIKE ROSENTHAL AND
JOHN / JANE DOES 1-5
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL,
GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE,
AND AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendants Bridgewater Owners Association, Inc.
(“BOA”) and Mike Rosenthal’s Motion to Compel certain interrogatory responses from Plaintiff
Abby Robinson , and (2) Robinson’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline and Trial Date
. Having considered the motions and responses, the Court finds that both motions are welltaken and should be granted.
Facts and Procedural History
This case concerns a disagreement between Defendants and Plaintiff regarding whether the
house Robinson built in the Bridgewater Subdivision of Madison County, Mississippi, met with
the Bridgewater Subdivision’s covenants and BOA’s building and architectural requirements. See
 at 3;  at 2. Robinson claims that the house she constructed through her company, New
England Contractors, LLC., was fully approved by Rosenthal, Bridgewater’s Architectural Review
Coordinator, prior to construction. See  at 3. She claims that despite having approval of both
the original plans and subsequent modifications to those plans, Defendants “harrasse[d],
intimidated and/or otherwise prevented [her] from the quiet enjoyment of her property” and
discriminated against her on account of her race and gender. Id. at 4-5. The underlying dispute
between BOA and Robinson is the subject of ongoing litigation in the Chancery Court of Madison
County, Mississippi.1 See  at 2.
Bridgewater’s Motion to Compel
Defendants served interrogatories on Robinson on January 19, 2017. . Defendants now
move to compel Robinson to give more complete answers to two interrogatories.2 At issue are the
following interrogatories and responses:
Interrogatory No. 1: Please state the addresses of all homes in which you
have lived after the age of 25, and the addresses of all homes constructed by you or
any construction company in which you owned an ownership interest.
Response: Objection. This Interrogatory seeks information that is not
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of the
case. Plaintiffs further object because this interrogatory is not important in
resolving the issues and is calculated to annoy, embarrass and harass.
Supplemental Response: Without waiving the previous objections, Plaintiff
Abby Robinson states she has built the houses at 100 Bridgewater Crossing and a
house at 301 Buckingham Place, Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157.
Interrogatory No. 18: With regard to those aspects or components of your
home which differ from the plans, specifications, and other documents which you
submitted to BOA, as described in your answer to the preceding Interrogatory,
please identify by address all other homes within the Bridgewater Subdivision
under the jurisdiction of BOA which you contend have the same materials or
components as installed in your home.
Response: Please see Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 18.
Supplemental Response: Objection. This Interrogatory is confusing as it
references the preceding Interrogatory but fails to use the preceding Interrogatory’s
conjunctive (“and”) language, resulting in a materially different question. Without
waiving said objection, please see Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony referencing
specific addresses of homes. Further, Plaintiffs will supplement, again, in writing,
the addresses which have the same materials or components as installed at 100
Bridgewater Owners Association, Inc. vs. New England Contractors, LLC, et al., Cause No. 15-cv-00375,
Chancery Court of Madison County, Mississippi. See  at 1.
Defendants originally sought to compel answers to three interrogatories, but withdrew their motion as it applied to
Interrogatory 23 in the later-filed accompanying brief.  at 2.
 at 2-4.
Defendants argue that these interrogatories are relevant because they relate directly to the
dispute between Defendants and Robinson over the construction of her home, and seek information
that is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, generally, . Defendants
contend that the existence of other houses that Robinson has constructed is relevant, as she claims
to be an expert in construction.  at 2-3. Defendants allege that Robinson claims the materials
used in construction and the architectural elements of her home are no different than other homes
in Bridgewater, making Robinson’s knowledge of the materials used in construction of the other
homes relevant. Id. at 4. Robinson responds that she either already provided the requested
information in her deposition or that the interrogatories have little or no relation to any claim or
defense in this case.  at 2-3.
Robinson’s Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and Trial Date
Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline and a resetting of the trial date. .
Plaintiff explains that the Madison County Chancery Court case required significant resources and
litigation, and, as of the date of this Order, is in trial.  at 6-8. Plaintiff states that she hopes to
supplement her discovery responses using information and testimony from the trial. Id. The docket
shows that Plaintiff has requested no prior extensions or amendments to the Case Management
Defendants object to any discovery extensions, arguing that Plaintiff has made no real
effort to conduct discovery prior to mid-July, just prior to expiration of the August 2, 2017,
discovery deadline. . Defendants acknowledge that since Robinson’s newest counsel entered
an appearance on July 5, 2017, she has actively sought to depose a number of witnesses.  at 3.
1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel.
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to be considered in
making a determination as to whether information sought is within the scope of discovery include,
inter alia, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit. Id. The court may limit discovery if the discovery sought can be obtained from some
other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or “to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 25(b)(2)(C) and 26(c)(1).
Both of the interrogatories addressed in Defendants’ Motion to Compel are relevant to the
claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiff has made no argument that the interrogatories seek
privileged information. Further, the Court finds that neither of the interrogatories constitute an
undue burden to Robinson. Accordingly, the Court orders Robinson to provide full and complete
answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 18 by August 18, 2017.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and Trial Date.
To amend a scheduling order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) requires that the moving party
demonstrate good cause and obtain the judge’s consent. “The good cause standard requires the
‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of
the party needing the extension.’” Smith v. BCE, Inc., 225 F. App'x 212, 217 (5th Cir. 2007)(citing
S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. South Trust Bank of Ala. NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). The Fifth
Circuit has held, “[w]e owe the trial court ‘broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose
of the pretrial order,' which, toward the end of court efficiency, is to expedite pretrial procedure.”
S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for amending the Case
Management Order and extending the discovery deadline. During the Case Management
Conference in this case, counsel agreed that in order to avoid duplicative discovery, depositions
and testimony from the chancery court matter could be used in this case. At the time of the Case
Management Conference, the chancery court case had already been set for trial on July 24-25,
2017. Plaintiff, therefore, expected to obtain certain testimony at the July trial and still be able to
supplement her disclosures by the August 2, 2017, discovery deadline in this case. A portion of
the chancery court trial was, however, continued to August 4, 2017, a date after the discovery
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend the deadlines. Defendants fail, however, to
show any real prejudice from granting Plaintiff’s request. Further, as a result of this order,
Defendants will be obtaining additional discovery from Plaintiff, and just two days ago on August
2, 2017 (the discovery deadline), the undersigned held a discovery conference in which Defendants
requested more discovery from Plaintiff, which Plaintiff agreed to provide.
Under all of the circumstances addressed above, the Court finds good cause to amend the
scheduling order in this case. The Court therefore amends the Case Management Order as follows:
All discovery must be completed by October 5, 2017.
All dispositive motions and Daubert-type motions challenging another party’s
expert must be filed by October 19, 2017.
This case is set for trial during the two-week term of court beginning on March 19,
2018 before United States District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III in Courtroom 5A at the United States
Courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi, and the pre-trial conference is set for February 9, 2018, before
IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of August, 2017.
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?