Emmanuel Tabernacle v. Church Mutual Insurance Co Inc

Filing 34

ORDER denying 31 defendant's motion for order compelling discovery (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/2/2012. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EMMANUEL TABERNACLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-515-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery, filed March 29,
2012. On April 20, 2012, plaintiff filed its response. Defendant has not filed a reply. Based upon
the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On September 21, 2011, defendant issued its First Set of Request for Production and First
Set of Interrogatories to plaintiff. On or about October 25, 2011, plaintiff responded to defendant’s
discovery requests. Plaintiff assured defendant that it would supplement its disclosures and
responses in a timely manner if and when plaintiff learns the disclosures and responses are materially
incomplete or incorrect.
On February 21, 2012, defendant’s counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting that
plaintiff supplement its discovery responses. Defendant now seeks an order compelling plaintiff to
supplement its discovery responses. Plaintiff contends that defendant has not satisfied its burden of
proving that plaintiff failed to adequately respond to defendant’s discovery requests.
For purposes of a motion to compel, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) provides that
“an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose,
answer, or respond.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Nevertheless, the party moving to compel

discovery bears the burden of proving that the opposing party’s answers are incomplete. Tara Woods
Ltd. P’ship v. Fannie Mae, 265 F.R.D. 561, 566 (D. Colo. 2010); see also Dailfon Inc. v. Allied
Chem. Corp., 534 F.2d 221, 227 (10th Cir. 1976).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendant does not
satisfy its burden of proving that plaintiff’s answers are incomplete. Here, attached as exhibits to
defendant’s motion, are defendant’s initial discovery requests and its letter to plaintiff requesting
plaintiff to supplement its responses. Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery [docket
no. 31], Exs. 1 and 2. Defendant, however, fails to provide the Court with plaintiff’s responses to
defendant’s discovery requests.1 Moreover, plaintiff represents to the Court that it has produced all
responsive information and materials within its possession, custody, and control, answered
defendant’s discovery requests with the information then available, and supplemented its discovery
responses. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery [docket no.
33] at pp. 3-5.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery
[docket no. 31].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2012.

1

The Court notes that defendant provides the Court defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s
discovery request, but fails to provide plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s discovery requests.
2