La Michoacana Natural, LLC v. Maestre et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 31 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendants Initial Disclosures and Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things and for Sanctions.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall serve their initial disclosures and full discovery responses on Plaintiffs counsel by August 31, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/17/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-727-RJC-DCK
LA MICHOACANA NATURAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUIS MAESTRE, ADRIANA TERAN, and
LA LINDA MICHOACANA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and
Motion to Compel Defendants’ Initial Disclosures and Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First
Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things and for Sanctions”
(Document No. 31) filed July 27, 2018. 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 the motion
in part, and deny the motion in part.
By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to provide: Rule 26(a) initial
disclosures; responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production of
documents; and reasonable costs and fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. (Document No. 31).
Defendants have failed to file a response, and the time to do so has lapsed. See Local Rule 7.1(e).
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 and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance

of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable.
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). 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).
Based on the foregoing, as well as Plaintiff’s arguments and legal authority, the
undersigned finds good cause to grant the pending motion to compel Defendants’ initial
disclosures and discovery responses. At this time, the undersigned will decline to award sanctions
against the pro se Defendants; however, Plaintiff may renew its requests for costs and fees at a
later date if Defendants fail to comply with this Order.
Defendants are respectfully advised that they must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Moreover, Defendants are advised that to the extent
Defendant La Michoacana is a corporate entity, it must be represented by counsel. See Rowland
v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been
the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the
federal courts only through licensed counsel.”); see also MR Crescent City, LLC v. TJ Biscayne
Holdings LLC, 2013 WL 1243541, at **1 (4th Cir. March 28, 2013) (citing United States v.

2

Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581–82 (7th Cir. 2008) (LLCs, like corporations, are not permitted to
proceed pro se).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to
Compel Defendants’ Initial Disclosures and Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Sets of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things and for Sanctions”
(Document No. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall serve their initial disclosures and full
discovery responses on Plaintiff’s counsel by August 31, 2018.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Defendants by certified U.S.
mail, return receipt requested.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 17, 2018

3