Johnson v. The Sunshine House, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/8/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-511-MOC-DCK

RHAE JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE SUNSHINE HOUSE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se Plaintiff’s “Discovery Disclosure
Motion To Compel” (Document No. 14). This motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is now ripe for disposition. Having carefully
considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff previously filed a “Discovery Disclosure Motion To Compel” (Document No. 11)
on March 5, 2012, in which she sought a Court order compelling Defendant to respond to certain
discovery requests. Plaintiff also recently filed a “Motion To Quash” (Document No. 13) filed
March 9, 2012, apparently seeking to quash any subpoenas or depositions purportedly proposed by
Defendant. Plaintiff’s motion, however, did not attach or identify any subpoena or notice of
deposition to be quashed. (Document No. 13). Plaintiff then filed a second “Motion To Quash”
(Document No. 16) on March 16, 2012. Plaintiff’s second motion to quash also did not attach or
identify any subpoena or notice of deposition to be quashed. (Document No. 16). On March 20,
2012, the undersigned issued an “Order” (Document No. 17) denying the foregoing motions
(Document Nos. 11, 13, and 16) as moot and premature, and declining at that time to rule on the

instant motion to compel (Document No. 14).
Turning now to that matter, Plaintiff’s second “Discovery Disclosure Motion To Compel”
(Document No. 14) was filed on March 9, 2012. “Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To
Compel (Document No. 18) was filed March 26, 2012; and “Plaintiff’s Opposition To Defendant
Objections To Motion To Compel” (Document No. 20) was filed April 6, 2012. As such, the
pending motion to compel is now ripe for review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense--including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible
at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction.
See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947).
However, a court may “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Whether to grant or deny a motion to compel is generally left within a district court’s broad
discretion. See, Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th
Cir. 1995) (denial of motions to compel reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion); Erdmann v.
Preferred Research Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988) (noting District Court’s substantial
discretion in resolving motions to compel); and LaRouche v. National Broadcasting Co., 780 F.2d
1134, 1139 (4th Cir. 1986) (same).
2

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion, liberally construed, contends that Defendant has failed to fully and
adequately disclose, answer, and/or respond to her discovery requests. (Document No. 14).
Plaintiff, however, acknowledges that on March 8, 2012, she received a fifteen (15) page response,
“Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s First Written Discovery” (Document No. 14-1), which she
attached to her motion. (Document No. 14). Within that document, Plaintiff now identifies
numerous responses which she contends are non-responsive or inadequate. Id.
“Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel” (Document No. 18) also attaches
a copy of its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, along with copies of the approximately 174
pages of documents it contends it served with its responses on March 5, 2012. (Document No. 18,
pp.1-2; Document Nos. 18-1 - 18-4). In short, Defendant asserts that it has responded to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests to the best of its knowledge and as required by law.
The undersigned has carefully reviewed “Defendant’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First Written
Discovery” (Document Nos. 14-1, 18-1) and finds that the responses appear adequate and
reasonable. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the undersigned is not persuaded that the responses
are either unresponsive or evasive. Moreover, the arguments, explanations, and cited authority in
Defendant’s opposition to the instant motion provide compelling support for the adequacy of its
discovery responses. (Document No. 18).
For example, regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s request for certain admissions
regarding proceedings before the North Carolina Unemployment Security Commission (now
Division of Employment Security), Defendant has cited to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 96-4(x)(5) and this
Court’s decision in Hartsell v. Duplex Prod., Inc., 3:93CV414-GCM, 895 F.Supp. 100, 103
(W.D.N.C. 1995). (Document No. 18, p.3; see also, Document No. 14-1, p.4). Both authorities
3

support Defendant’s conclusion that the information Plaintiff seeks is privileged. Id. To date,
Plaintiff has failed to articulate an argument or cite to relevant legal authority refuting Defendant’s
position. (Document Nos. 14 & 20).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, as well as additional arguments and authority set forth in
Defendant’s brief (Document No. 18), the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s “Discovery Disclosure
Motion To Compel” (Document No. 14) must be denied. Defendant has suggested that the Court
consider granting an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with contesting
Plaintiff’s Motion.” (Document No. 18, pp.8-9). The undersigned will decline to require payment
of costs or fees at this time, but respectfully advises Plaintiff that the Court is authorized to allow
such an award in appropriate cases pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Discovery Disclosure Motion To
Compel” (Document No. 14) be DENIED.

Signed: May 8, 2012

4