The Precinct, Inc. v. MWS, LLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 26 ) is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide amended answers and responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests no later than December 29, 2014. The Court also enters Plaintiffs proposed protective order (ECF No. 32). Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 12/18/2014. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
THE PRECINCT, INC.,
) No. 4:13-CV-2391 RLW
MWS , LLC,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Memorandum in
Support (ECF No. 26) and on the parties' proposed protective orders. (ECF Nos. 32 and 33). In
accordance with the forgoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, and enters
Plaintiffs proposed protective order
Motion to Compel
In Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Memorandum in Support ("Motion to Compel"),
Plaintiff states that Defendant' s discovery responses were due on or before October 27, 2014, or
at the latest, November 7, 2014.
(ECF No. 26). 1 By failing to provide timely discovery
responses, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has waived all objections and Defendant should
provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Production Requests
without objection. (ECF No. 26)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4)("The grounds for objecting to an
Plaintiff served its discovery requests after the parties had their Federal Rule 26(f) conference
but prior to the entry of the Case Management Order. Defendant claimed that its responses were
not due until 30 days after the Rule 16 Conference. In any event, Defendant did not provide
discovery responses within either of these timeframes, given that it first produced documents on
December 4, 2014.
interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is
waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure ."); Schembre v. AGR Const. Co., No.
4:06-CV-943 (CEJ), 2007 WL 3268443, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 2, 2007)("By failing to timely
respond, defendants have waived all objections and will be directed to produce all documents
listed in the Notice of Deposition.").
In response to the Motion to Compel, Defendant stated that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
is "essentially correct" and failed to provide any reason for the delay in providing the discovery
(ECF No. 29 at 1). Instead, Defendant simply said that granting it leave to file its
discovery responses out of time was "required in the interests of substantial justice." (Id.).
In reply, Plaintiff notes that Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for filing its
discovery responses out of time and, in any event, that the discovery responses are incomplete.
(ECF No. 34 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)). 2
The Court will allow Defendant to file its discovery responses, but holds that Defendant
has waived any objection to Plaintiffs discovery responses by filing them out of time and
without providing good cause. Further, although Defendant claims that Plaintiff has suffered no
prejudice, the Court notes that this case was originally filed in November 2013. Based upon the
protracted nature of this litigation, it is imperative that the parties act with due diligence in
prosecuting and defending this action in order to have a timely resolution of this dispute.
Therefore, the Court holds that Plaintiff has been prejudiced by Defendant's delay in providing
In its reply, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to show cause why it "should not be
ordered to pay Plaintiffs fees and expenses, including attorney' s fees, incurred as a result of
Defendant' s continuing failure to comply with its discovery obligations under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure." While the Court will not issue such an order at this time, the Court warns
Defendant that if it fails to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiffs discovery requests
and causes Plaintiff to file another motion to compel, then the Court will strongly consider such
The Court orders Defendant to provide amended discovery responses
without any objections, except those based upon privilege, no later than December 29, 2014.
Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs discovery responses are woefully
incomplete. For example, Defendant claims that it has no documents showing "any expenditures
that you or any licensees have made on advertising or promotion of products or services bearing
the term 'precinct' for each month that you have used the term ' precinct. "' (ECF No. 30 at 7).
The Court finds it difficult to believe that Defendant has spent no money on advertising or
products that utilize the term "precinct." Thus, the Court asks Defendant to revisit its discovery
responses to assure that it has provided full and complete answers and responses. Defendant
shall provide any amended answers and responses no later than December 29, 2014.
Plaintiff provided Defendant with a draft protective order two months ago--on October
15, 2014. (ECF No. 34 at 5). As of December 4, 2014, when Defendant finally responded to
Plaintiffs discovery requests, the parties still had not reached an agreement. In fact, Defendant
stated in its response to the Court' s show cause order that Defendant did not produce several
documents because the parties did not have a protective order in place. See, e.g. , ECF No. 29,
In order to expedite discovery in this matter, on December 5, 2014, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to file its proposed protective order with the Court, and for Defendant to "file any
objections or changes to Plaintiffs proposed order within 5 days of Plaintiff filing its proposed
(ECF No. 31).
On that same day, Plaintiff provided the Court with its
proposed protective order. (ECF No. 32). In contravention of the Court' s December 5, 2014
Order, Defendant did not provide any objections or changes to Plaintiffs proposed order, but
instead filed a "Stipulated Protective Order" on December 10, 2014. (ECF No. 33). Despite its
title and the introductory paragraph, the Stipulated Protective Order was not agreed to by
The Court will enter Plaintiffs proposed protective order. The Court first notes that
Defendant did not comply with the Court' s Order for Defendant to provide objections and
changes to Plaintiffs proposed protective order.
That is, Defendant failed to provide any
specific reason for the Court not to enter Plaintiffs seemingly standard and reasonable protective
order. Second, the Court finds that Plaintiffs protective order is not unduly burdensome to the
parties and is similar to other protective orders entered by this Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Memorandum in
Support (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide amended answers and responses
to Plaintiffs discovery requests no later than December 29, 2014.
The Court also enters
Plaintiffs proposed protective order (ECF No. 32).
Dated this$1h day of December, 2014.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?