General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554 v. Roberts Dairy Company, LLC

Filing 72

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (filing 64 ) and Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Sanctions (filing 67 ) are denied. Defendant shall produce the documents referenced in its response to Interrogatory 15 as set forth above. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GENERAL DRIVERS AND
HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 554,
Affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Plaintiff,
V.
ROBERTS DAIRY COMPANY,
LLC, a limited liability company
organized in the State of Illinois,
Defendant.

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

8:12CV99

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (filing 64) and
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Sanctions (filing 67). Plaintiff’s Motions will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers to Interrogatory
Nos. 13, 14, and 15 of Plaintiff’s January 22, 2013 Interrogatories. (Filing 59.) On March
18, 2013, the Court entered an order requiring Defendant to serve responses to these
Interrogatories within thirty days, or by April 17, 2013. (Filing 63.)
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Sanctions (filing 64) on April 22, 2013, advising the
Court that Defendant had not provided responses to the Interrogatories as previously ordered.
On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Amended Motion for Sanctions (filing 67) informing the
Court that Plaintiff received responses to Interrogatories 13 and 14 on or about April 23,
2013, but did not receive a full and complete response to Interrogatory 15 on that date.
Defendant’s response to Interrogatory 15 provides that “Sales volume varies over time for
a number of reasons. [Defendant] is conducting an investigation to determine the precise
level of increase or decrease . . . Defendant is searching for . . . business records and will

produce records from which an answer to this interrogatory may be obtained.” (Filing 67-1.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has requested the imposition of sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Rule 37
authorizes the Court to enter sanctions against a party who fails to comply with a discovery
order. Considering the circumstances here, the Court finds that Defendant’s failure to
provide responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories in a timely manner does not warrant the
imposition of sanctions. Although the Court does not condone Defendant’s tardiness, the
responses were less than a week late and the late responses do not prejudice Plaintiff’s case.
A planning conference is set for June 7, 2013, and a final progression order has not been
entered.
Although sanctions will not be imposed, the Court will order Defendant to produce,
no later than May 24, 2013, the documents referenced in Defendant’s response to
Interrogatory 15. If the documents cannot be produced by May 24, Defendant shall request
leave to extend this deadline and, in doing so, show cause why the documents cannot be
produced by the set date. Defendant’s failure to comply with this Order will result in the
Court revisiting the issue of sanctions.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (filing 64) and Plaintiff’s
Amended Motion for Sanctions (filing 67) are denied. Defendant shall produce the
documents referenced in its response to Interrogatory 15 as set forth above.
DATED May 13, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2