Ashmore v. Allied Energy Inc
Filing
51
ORDER and OPINION granting 37 Motion to Compel as set out. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/9/15.(alew, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Beattie B. Ashmore,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Allied Energy, Inc.,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00227-JMC-2
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 37), to which
Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 38).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case.” 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 is
designed to provide a party with information reasonably necessary to afford a fair opportunity to
develop its case. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., Inc.,
967 F.2d 980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992) (“the discovery rules are given ‘a broad and liberal treatment’”)
(quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). Nevertheless, discovery is not limitless
and the court has the discretion to protect a party from “oppression” or “undue burden or expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
1
Factors a court should consider to determine such proportionality include “the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to the relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
Civ. P 26(b)(1).
“If a party fails to make a disclosure” required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, “any other party may
move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanction” after it has “in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Specifically, a party “may move for an order
compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
Plaintiff’s primary contention is that Defendant’s responses to the Interrogatories thus far
are deficient. (See ECF No. 37-1 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that “there are a multitude of reasons why
each response is deficient.” (Id. at 5 n. 3.) In its brief, Plaintiff outlines those deficiencies that
“are most egregious and/or most impactful to the ultimate prosecution of this case.” (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court compel Defendant to more fully and accurately
respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24 and Requests for Production
Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 26, 32, and 33. (See generally ECF No. 37-1.) Defendant,
however, contends in its Response that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is “unnecessary,” stating:
Defendant believes it has made a good faith effort to cooperate in discovery and
has provided Plaintiff with documents in its possession and within the scope of
discovery. Defendant also believes that some items requested, such as material to
be used in trial or depositions, will become available as the litigation progresses
and the parties begin to prepare for depositions and/or trial.
(ECF No. 38 at 1.)
Broad discretion is afforded a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion to compel.
Erdmann v. Preferred Research Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988). Exercising that discretion
here, this court finds reasonable Plaintiff’s explanations of how Defendant’s Responses to
Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24 and Requests for Production Nos. 10,
12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 26, 32, and 33 are deficient such that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
should be granted. This court’s conclusion especially is due to the breadth and scope of Plaintiff’s
concerns regarding the deficiencies of Defendant’s responses to numerous discovery requests—
none of which Defendant specifically addressed in its Response.
For these reasons, this court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 37).
Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests addressed in its Motion to Compel
(ECF No. 37) no later than January 8, 2015. The court denies at this time Plaintiff’s request for
fees and costs related to this discovery action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
December 9, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
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?