Henderson v. Group 1 Automotive Inc

Filing 14

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff is directed to provide responses to the discovery request by December 15, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/1/2014.(mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Arthur Wyman Henderson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. d/b/a
Toyota of Rock Hill,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 0:14-2639-MBS-SVH

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the motion of GPI SC-T, LLC, d/b/a Toyota
of Rock Hill1 (“Defendant”) to compel Arthur Wyman Henderson (“Plaintiff”) to produce
responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for
Production served on September 5, 2014. [ECF No. 13]. The motion indicates that the
discovery requests were duly served and that full and complete responses have not been
made within the time prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the
discovery requests, after a 30-day consent extension, was November 7, 2014. Id. Defense
counsel represents that as of November 26, 2014, Plaintiff had not answered or responded
to the discovery requests. Id.
In light of the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel. Plaintiff
is directed to provide responses to the discovery request by December 15, 2014. Because

1

The undersigned notes that Defendant’s motion identifies itself as “GPI SC-T, LLC,
d/b/a Toyota of Rock Hill,” but its responses to Local Civ. Rule 26.01 interrogatories
indicate that it was properly named in the complaint [ECF No. 6 at 3].

Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the discovery, any and all objections are deemed
waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
The court denies the motion for attorney’s fees at this time. However, if Plaintiff
fails to provide the responses as directed herein, the court will grant a request for fees and
costs by Defendant through a refiled motion accompanied by an affidavit setting out the
time expended in connection with the motion to compel and the hourly rate that the client
has been billed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 1, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2