Baker & Taylor, Inc. v. College Book Rental Company, LLC et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 57 Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jones. Defendant Jones shall fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 11, and Request for Production No. 7, on or before October 30, 3013; Further Ordered that Defendant Jones shall reimburse Defendant Griffin for the reasonable expenses associated with filing Document Nos. 57, 58, and 62, on or before November 1, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 10/16/2013. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-553-MOC-DCK
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COLLEGE BOOK RENTAL COMPANY, LLC, )
CHARLES JONES, and DAVID GRIFFIN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant David Griffin’s Motion To
Compel Discovery Responses From Defendant Charles Jones” (Document No. 57). This motion
has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is ripe
for review. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will grant Defendant Griffin’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Baker & Taylor, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “B&T”) filed its “Complaint” (Document
No. 1) against College Book Rental Company, LLC (“CBR”), Charles Jones (“Jones”), and
David Griffin (“Griffin”) (collectively “Defendants”) on August 24, 2012.

The Complaint

asserts that Defendant CBR owes Plaintiff “19,437,734.73 for Books CBR ordered, received, and
accepted from Baker & Taylor, but for which CBR did not remit payment to Baker & Taylor.”
(Document No. 1, p.5). The Complaint further asserts that “Jones and Griffin each guaranteed
payment of all obligations of CBR to Baker & Taylor by executing personal guaranties.”
(Document No. 1, p.3).

“Defendant David Griffin’s Motion To Compel Discovery Responses From Defendant
Charles Jones” (Document No. 57) was filed on August 20, 2013. The motion contends that
Defendant Jones was served with Griffin’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents on May 31, 2013. (Document No. 57, p.1). Jones received an
extension of time to serve responses by August 2, 2013, but purportedly failed to make any
response by that deadline. Id. Griffin asserts that Jones finally served “late, incomplete and
evasive responses” on August 7, 2013.

(Document No. 57, p.2). “…Griffin’s Motion To

Compel…” seeks: (1) sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5); (2) full responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 11, and Request for Production No. 7; and (3) the production of “responsive
documents and privilege log of any responsive documents withheld by Jones.” (Document No.
57, p.3).
“Defendant Charles Jones’s Response to Defendant David Griffin’s Motion to Compel”
(Document No. 61) was filed on September 9, 2013, three (3) days after it was due. “Defendant
Charles Jones’s Response…” consists of a one sentence reference to the attached “Affidavit Of
Charles A. Jones” (Document No. 61-1). Jones’ “Affidavit…” asserts that he has “produced an
extensive number of documents” in other litigation and that he is “unaware of any other
responsive documents in [his] custody.” (Document No. 61-1, p.2). The Jones “…Response…”
(Document No. 61) and its attachments fail to make any reference to any of the specific
discovery requests in “…Griffin’s Motion To Compel…” (Document No. 57).

The Jones

“…Response…” also fails to present any legal authority supporting the suggestion that
Defendant Jones’ discovery production in other litigation relieves him of his responsibility to
participate fully in the discovery required by this Court. See (Document Nos. 61, 61-1).

2

The “Reply of Defendant David Griffin’s In Support Of Motion to Compel Discovery
From Cross-Defendant Charles Jones” (Document No. 62) was timely filed on September 13,
2013. Griffin’s “Reply…” essentially contends that the Jones’ “…Response…” affirms that
Jones is refusing to participate in discovery in this case, and argues that sanctions are
appropriate.
II. 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).

3

If the motion is granted – or if the disclosure or requested
discovery is provided after the motion was filed – the court must,
after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or
deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or
attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including
attorney’s fees.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). Likewise, if a motion is denied, the Court may award reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees, to the party opposing the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B).
III. DISCUSSION
As noted above, “Defendant Charles Jones’s Response…” (Document No. 61) offers
little, if any, information that is helpful to the Court in deciding Griffin’s pending “…Motion To
Compel…” (Document No. 57). In particular, Jones declines to include any argument about, or
even reference to, the discovery Griffin now seeks, most specifically, full responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 11, and Request for Production No. 7.
After careful review of the parties’ submissions, the undersigned finds that “Defendant
Charles Jones’s Response…” (Document No. 61) is inadequate and compels a decision granting
Defendant Griffin the relief he seeks.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant David Griffin’s Motion To Compel
Discovery Responses From Defendant Charles Jones” (Document No. 57) is GRANTED.
Defendant Jones shall fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 11, and Request for
Production No. 7, on or before October 30, 3013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones shall reimburse Defendant Griffin
for the reasonable expenses associated with filing Document Nos. 57, 58, and 62, on or before
November 1, 2013. The parties are directed to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate

4

reimbursement without further Court intervention; however, if the parties’ good faith efforts fail,
Defendant Griffin may file a motion supported by an affidavit detailing the reasonable expenses
being requested.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 16, 2013

5