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)

Download PDF
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

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?