Gathers v. Thomas

Filing 66

ORDER granting Thomas's 42 motion to compel and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 53 motion to compel. The parties are directed to supplement the discovery in accordance with this order by January 31, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/17/2020. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Travis Gathers,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ryan Thomas and Brooks Felment, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 0:19-1156-SAL-SVH

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on defendant Thomas’ss motion to
compel discovery responses from Plaintiff [ECF No. 42] and Plaintiff’s motion
to compel discovery responses from Thomas [ECF No. 53].
I.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel
Thomas filed his motion to compel supplemental discovery responses

from Plaintiff on December 4, 2019. [ECF No. 42]. The court ordered Plaintiff
to respond to the motion by December 16, 2019. [ECF No. 43]. On December
9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. [ECF No. 45]. On
December 26, 2019, the undersigned’s order directing Plaintiff to file a
response to the motion to compel was returned in the mail as undeliverable,
as it had been sent to Plaintiff’s previous address. [ECF No. 54]. Because the
certificate of service Thomas filed with the motion also indicated it had been
mailed to Plaintiff’s prior address, the court directed the Clerk’s office to mail

the motion to compel to Plaintiff’s new address and permitted him until
January 6, 2020, to file a response. [ECF No. 58].
To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Thomas’s motion.
Plaintiff having failed to dispute the motion, the undersigned grants
Thomas’s motion to compel. Plaintiff is directed to supplement the
deficiencies in his discovery responses by January 31, 2020.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks more specific responses to selected

interrogatories and requests for production. Specifically, he complains that in
response to Interrogatory No. 8, Thomas provides only the date in which
AT&T provided records, instead of the date Thomas reviewed the records.
[ECF No. 53-1 at 2]. In response, Thomas argues there is a notation in the
documents that he reviewed the records on April 10, 2017. [ECF No. 60].
Defendant is directed to formally supplement his discovery responses with
this information for clarity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by January 31,
2020.
Plaintiff also argues Thomas failed to produce sufficient documents in
response to Request for Production No. 1(f). It appears Thomas provided the
information as an attachment to his response to the motion. See ECF No. 601. As Plaintiff has not filed a reply, and therefore does not appear to object to
Thomas’s supplemental production, the issue is moot.

Lastly, Plaintiff argues Thomas failed to provide all of the documents
from AT&T in his response to Request for Production No. 1(h). In response,
Thomas notes Plaintiff requested only the disclaimer related to the
documents, which was produced. [ECF No. 60 at 3–4]. Thomas also produced
the full records for the days in question and states that the records for the
other days are not relevant, as they were not relied on in making the arrests.

Id. As Plaintiff did not file a reply or otherwise argue why such documents
are relevant, his motion to compel is denied as to No. 1(h).
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned grants Thomas’s motion to

compel [ECF No. 42] and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion
to compel [ECF No. 53]. The parties are directed to supplement the discovery
in accordance with this order by January 31, 2020. Failure to timely provide
supplemental discovery responses may result in sanctions, including an
award of attorneys’ fees, dismissal of this action for failure to cooperate in
discovery, or striking of a pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 17, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge