Miller v. Wal-Mart

Filing 59

ORDER granting 54 Motion to Compel. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond fully to each of the interrogatories and to produce all documents responsive to the discovery requests by October 1, 2014. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 19, 2014, why the Court should not award Defendant its costs and fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A).. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 09/12/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13cv46
MARK KEVIN M ILLER

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WAL-MART,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel [# 54].
Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, to produce
documents in response to its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents
and fully answer its First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff contends that it has
produced all responsive documents in its possession and has fully answered the
interrogatories. Upon a review of the record and the relevant legal authority, the
Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel [# 54].
I.

Legal Standard

Generally speaking, parties are entitled to discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

-1-

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Where
a party fails to respond to an interrogatory or a request for production of
documents, the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer to the interrogatories or the production of documents responsive to the
request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “Over the course of more than four decades,
district judges and magistrate judges in the Fourth Circuit . . . have repeatedly ruled
that the party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel
discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec
Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (collecting cases); Mainstreet
Collection, Inc. v. Kirkland’s, Inc., 270 F.R.D 238, 241 (E.D.N.C. 2010); Billips v.
Benco Steel, Inc., No. 5:10cv95, 2011 WL 4005933 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2011)
(Keesler, Mag. J.).
II.

Analysis

Defendant served Plaintiff with its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set
of Requests for Production of Documents in May of 2014. In response to these
discovery requests, Plaintiff provided Defendant with only various objections to
the requests. (Ex. 2 to Def.’s Mot. to Compel.) Not only did Plaintiff object to
each and every discovery requests on various grounds, but he objected to each of
the definitions. Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with any substantive answers

-2-

to any of its interrogatories and did not provide Defendant with any documents
responsive to the various discovery requests.
After a review of Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiff’s objections, and
the relevant legal authority, the Court finds that most of Plaintiff’s objections are
without merit, frivolous, or consist of only boiler plate objections devoid of any
substance. For example, Plaintiff objects to the following definition contained in
Defendant’s discovery request: “The term ‘Plaintiff,’ ‘you” or ‘your” means Mark
Keven Miller.” (Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot. Compel; Ex. 2 to Def.’s Mot. Compel.)
Plaintiff objects to this definition “on the grounds that is vague, overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and that [it] is not possible to know all of the persons.” (Ex. 2 to
Def.’s Mot. Compel.) Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s discovery requests is
replete with similar nonsensical objections that have no basis in law or fact.
Plaintiff has simply objected to each and every request and refused to answer any
interrogatories or produce any documents despite the fact that he is obligated under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to do so.
Moreover, the legitimate objections offered by Plaintiff such as attorney
client privilege or that the request is overbroad, are nothing more than boiler plate
objections without any explanation as to how or why the objection applies to the
request. Plaintiff may not set forth the same boiler plate objections to every single

-3-

discovery request of Defendant and then refuse to take part in discovery.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel. [# 54]. The Court
ORDERS Plaintiff to respond fully and completely to each of the interrogatories
and to produce all documents responsive to the discovery requests by October 1,
2014. The failure to comply with this Order will result in the imposition of
sanctions against Plaintiff, including the possibility that the Court will recommend
that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Finally, the Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 19, 2014, why the Court
should not award Defendant its costs and fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for bringing this motion.
III.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion [# 54]. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to
respond fully to each of the interrogatories and to produce all documents
responsive to the discovery requests by October 1, 2014. The Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 19, 2014, why the Court
should not award Defendant its costs and fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A).

Signed: September 12, 2014

-4-