Rodgers v. Data Transmission Network et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting the Defendant's 65 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall produce the documents and information responsive to Defendants Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents on or before December 19 , 2011. On or before December 19, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a response to this Ordershowing cause why Defendants should not be awarded reasonable costs andattorneys fees incurred in bringing this motion to compel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GLORIA RODGERS,
Plaintiff,
V.
DATA TRANSMISSION
NETWORK, CHRIS
WHITTINGHILL, and SHERI
WASHBURN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:10CV46

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion requesting that the Court compel Plaintiff to respond
to Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents (filing 65), which were served on August 1, 2011. Plaintiff has objected to the
motion, arguing only that no responses are due because Defendants have exceeded the
permissible number of interrogatory requests.
The record before the Court indicates that Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses
to Defendants’ second set of discovery requests and, before submission of her brief opposing
this motion, failed to assert any objections to the requests, written or otherwise.1 By failing
to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, Plaintiff has waived all objections to these
requests. See Hawkins v. Inserra, No. 8:07CV368, 2009 WL 1740590, at *1 (D. Neb. June
16, 2009) (“by failing to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, [defendant] has waived
all objections to these discovery requests.”) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel will
be granted.
Furthermore, by or before December 19, 2011, Plaintiff shall show cause why

1

Plaintiff appears to argue that she did, in fact, respond to Defendants’ second set of
discovery requests. However, other than an email sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to defense counsel
stating that “supplemental answers” are enclosed, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence indicating
that she did respond to the requests or assert objections prior to responding to this motion.

sanctions should not be imposed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if a motion to
compel discovery is granted, sanctions must be awarded to the moving party absent a
showing of good cause for the non-disclosure by the opposing party. A party against whom
a motion to compel is enforced may only avoid payment of sanctions by demonstrating that
its position is substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust. Id. The Court shall, after giving Plaintiff a chance to respond, grant Defendants
reasonable expenses for filing their motion to compel, unless Plaintiff shows substantial
justification for her failure to provide responses.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ motion to compel (filing 65) is granted.

2.

Plaintiff shall produce the documents and information responsive to
Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for
Production of Documents on or before December 19, 2011.

3.

On or before December 19, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order
showing cause why Defendants should not be awarded reasonable costs and
attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this motion to compel.

DATED December 7, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2