Sellers v. Giant Cement Holding Inc

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 MOTION to Compel filed by Giant Cement Holding Inc. Plaintiff is directed to provide responses to the discovery request by May 21, 2012. The court denies the motion for attorney's fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/14/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Norris L Sellers,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Giant Cement Holding, Inc. dba
Giant Recovery Services,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:11-2803-JFA-SVH

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the motion [Entry #20] of Defendant to
compel Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to Interrogatories and Requests for
Production served February 15, 2012. 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 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
As of March 19, 2012, the date Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due, Plaintiff
had not answered or responded to the discovery requests, nor had he requested any
additional extension in which to answer the discovery requests. Consequently, any and all
objections are deemed waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
Attached as exhibits to the motion to compel are copies of correspondence between
counsel. Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter dated March 29, 2012
inquiring about the overdue discovery responses. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to
that letter and Defendant’s counsel followed up with an email dated April 4, 2012, after
which an extension was granted until April 20, 2012 to provide discovery responses.

After Plaintiff again failed to provide discovery responses, Defendant’s counsel followed
up by email dated April 26, 2012, and Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that the responses
would be sent out early the following week of April 30, 2012. After Plaintiff again failed
to provide discovery responses, Defendant’s counsel followed up by email dated May 7,
2012, and as of the filing of the motion to compel on May 11, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel had
not provided responses or otherwise communicated with Defendant’s counsel.
In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion to compel. Plaintiff is directed
to provide responses to the discovery request by May 21, 2012.
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 the request for fees and costs by
Defendant through a refiled motion accompanied by an affidavit setting out the time expended
in connection with the March 29, 2012 letter, follow-up emails and discovery motions and the
hourly rate that the client has been billed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 14, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge