Preciose et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 28

ORDER denying without prejudice Defendant's 20 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 6/22/2015. (Foell, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:14-CV-192-KS
SUSAN PRECIOSE and RICHARD
PRECIOSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses
[DE #20]. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have failed to fulfill their obligation to fully
respond to Defendant’s first discovery requests by asserting general objections that certain
requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant
evidence or not reasonably limited in time, scope or relevant subject matter. Defendant further
asserts that it agreed to an extension of time through April 21, 2015, for Plaintiffs to supplement
their responses and that Defendant had not received any supplementary responses prior to filing
its motion to compel on May 11, 2015. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion, contending that
they properly responded to Defendant’s discovery requests and, alternatively, that a number of
Defendant’s complaints with Plaintiffs’ responses will be rendered moot by the amendment of
Plaintiffs’ complaint and supplemental discovery responses to be served by Plaintiffs.
The court has reviewed the discovery requests at issue and finds that a number of the
discovery responses alleged to be deficient relate to a claim no longer being pursued by
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs having been permitted leave to amend their complaint by separate order
entered this same date. In addition, the court has not been advised whether Plaintiffs have since

supplemented their discovery responses and, if so, whether the supplementary responses
rendered any of the alleged deficiencies moot. Finally, it appears that Defendant has written
Plaintiffs’ counsel to delineate the alleged deficiencies with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and to
request supplementary discovery responses. However, it is not clear to the court whether the
parties have conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes prior to the
filing of Defendant’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), E.D.N.C.
(Jan. 2015). Accordingly, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s motion to
compel [DE #20]. In the event the parties are unable to resolve their differences after conferring
in person or by telephone, Defendant may refile its motion at that time.
This 22nd day of June 2015.

_______________________________________
KIMBERLY A. SWANK
United States Magistrate Judge

2