Gaston et al v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. et al
Filing
95
ORDER that Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order on 82 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses are OVERRULED; The Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. No. 81) is AFFIRMED; and the Magistrate Judge shall rule on the merits of the pending motion for attorneys' fees (Doc. No. 89). Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 3/9/2020. (tmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-00009-KDB-DCK
DELORIS GASTON AND
LEONARD GASTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC. AND POLICEREPORTS.US,
LLC,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 82). While Defendants are
obviously of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ claims have no merit, this hardly novel defense position
does not afford Defendants the right to avoid discovery within the broad (but not unbounded) reach
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether or not Defendants’ view of the facts and
applicable legal principles prevails when it is time for the Court or a jury to actually consider the
merits (and now is plainly not that time), their unilateral view of the case cannot delimit the scope
of permissible discovery, as the Magistrate Judge properly concluded. Accordingly, after careful
consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order, (Doc. No. 81) (the “Order”), and the parties’
respective arguments, the Court will OVERRULE the Defendants’ objections and AFFIRM the
Order.
1
I.
DISCUSSION
The parties do not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the governing facts and
procedural history of this matter, which will accordingly be adopted by the Court and not fully
repeated here. See Doc. No. 81 at 1-5.
Defendants raise four objections to the Order. First, Defendants object to the grant to
Plaintiffs’ of their reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in filing their Motion.
Second, they contend that the Magistrate Judge erroneously ordered Defendants to produce
documents “showing sales and revenue data from the sale of accident reports.” Third, Defendants
ask the Court to limit all of Plaintiffs’ document requests to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department (“CMPD”) and New York law enforcement agencies rather than only those requests
that are so limited by the Order. Finally, Defendants ask the Court to limit the deposition topics
for the 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants ordered by the Magistrate Judge to those proposed by
Defendants.
Generally speaking, parties are entitled to discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any claim or defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need
not be admissible at the trial to be discoverable. 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). The party resisting discovery bears the burden of
establishing the legitimacy of its objections. Eramo v. Rolling Stone LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205, 209
(W.D. Va. 2016) (“[T]he party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel
discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” (quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268
F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010))).
2
Thus, 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). Further,
whether to grant or deny a motion to compel discovery 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). Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
gives the district court discretion to impose sanctions for a party's failure to comply with its
discovery orders. Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th
Cir. 1989). A District Court reviews a Magistrate Judge’s order granting a motion to compel under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides that a District Court may reverse such a ruling only if it is
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a).
In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants had repeatedly provided
improper or incomplete responses to their interrogatories by identifying only the few entities that
had purchased the named Plaintiff’s accident report as an individual report, but not identifying
many others that purchased the report as “monthly subscription users” or “monthly subscription
holders.” (Document No. 70-1). Plaintiffs further argued that they need documents from the
Defendant that show all the entities that received the Plaintiff’s and other class members’ accident
reports as well as records of the Defendants’ payments to law enforcement agencies to confirm
that Plaintiffs have received records of all the disclosed accident reports and to measure the amount
that Defendants profited from this activity. (Document No. 70-1, p. 12).
The Magistrate Judge summarized Defendants’ position as follows:
3
Based on the briefing and the September telephone conference with the Court, it
appears to be Defendants’ view – despite Judge Cogburn’s Orders to the contrary
– that Plaintiffs’ case is without merit, and therefore, Defendants are not required
to fully participate in discovery. See (Documents No. 25, 42 and 75); see also
(Document No. 72-9). After declining to provide evidence through the discovery
process, Defendants reach the self-serving conclusion that “discovery has
confirmed that Plaintiffs have no evidence to support [their] allegations.”
(Document No. 75, p. 2) (emphasis added); See also Id. at 7 (“Plaintiffs have no
admissible evidence to meet their burden….”); and Id. at 14 and 15.
The Magistrate Judge then found that, “… the motion to compel should be granted. As
noted above, the rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction, and the
undersigned finds that much of the information sought by Plaintiffs is proportional to the needs of
this case, and thus discoverable. The admissibility of that information will be a decision for
another day.” The Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to provide full responses or
amend/supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests as described in his order. See
Doc. No. 81 at 8-11. The Order also held, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), that Defendants
must pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, associated with preparing and
filing the motions to compel. Id. at 11.
In their objections, Defendants contend that the Magistrate Judge erred in awarding
attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs because their discovery positions were “substantially justified.” While
it may be accurate to say that both sides have contributed to delays in discovery, the Court does
not find that the Magistrate Judge’s award of attorneys’ fees, including the implicit finding
(supported by the description of Defendants’ position quoted above) that Defendants’ refusal to
produce the requested discovery was not substantially justified, is clearly erroneous or contrary to
4
law. Therefore, the Court will overrule Defendants’ objection and affirm the Order’s requirement
that Defendants pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees.1
The Court similarly finds that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err or rule contrary to
law in ordering Defendants to produce documents “showing sales and revenue data from the sale
of accident reports,” limiting only some of Plaintiffs’ document requests to the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department (“CMPD”) and New York law enforcement agencies and
requiring Defendants to make representatives available for 30(b)(6) depositions. Therefore,
Defendants’ objections on those grounds will be overruled. However, Plaintiffs are reminded of
their continued obligation “to work together” with Defendants, Doc. 81 at 11, and to reasonably
pursue discovery with a focus on the discovery of facts related to the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Abuse of the discovery process by either party will not be tolerated.
Defendants also argue that because the Magistrate Judge accepted some of their discovery
positions then the Court should “apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion” pursuant to
Rule 37(a)(5)(C). Simply because the Magistrate Judge did not compel responses to each and every
discovery request to the full extent sought by Plaintiffs does not mean that the Motion to Compel
was not “granted” within the meaning of Rule 37(a)(5)(A) (rather than “granted in part and denied
in part” under Rule 37(a)(5)(C)). To hold otherwise would require ignoring the reality that in the
context of any discovery dispute involving multiple discovery requests no party’s positions are
likely to completely prevail. However, in practical effect, there is little difference between a
finding that attorneys’ fees should be awarded under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) rather than Rule
37(a)(5)(C). In deciding the amount of attorneys’ fees, the Magistrate Judge will ultimately
consider (along with the other required factors) whether any reduction in requested fees is
appropriate based on the court’s acceptance of some of the non-moving parties’ positions, whether
the analysis is done under either 37(a)(5)(A) or (C). See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 42930 (1983) (noting that “results obtained” is one of the factors to be considered in determining the
amount of a reasonable fee). Accordingly, in this matter the Magistrate Judge should take into
account the extent to which the Court accepted Defendants’ discovery positions, but with due
regard for the importance and level of dispute as to those issues. That is, the Magistrate Judge
should not calculate a reasonable attorneys’ fee simply based on the relative number of discovery
requests where answers or production of documents were not fully compelled but should focus
instead on the overall level of the Plaintiff’s success. See Id. at 435 (“… the fee award should not
be reduced simply because the Plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the
lawsuit.”).
1
5
II.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 82) are OVERRULED;
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. No. 81) is AFFIRMED; and
3. The Magistrate Judge shall rule on the merits of the pending motion for attorneys’
fees (Doc. No. 89).
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: March 9, 2020
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?