Whitaker v. Gates

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 5/11/12. (afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
NANCY WHITAKER,
Plaintiff
v.
LEON E. PANETTA,
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-0522
Judge Nixon/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
The Plaintiff in this matter has filed a motion to compel
discovery and certification (Docket Entry 24). In its present form
this motion is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge preferred procedure is
that the parties schedule a telephone conference with him before
filing motions.

In reviewing the initial case management order

(Docket Entry 16) this requirement was not included.

However, in

an order following a telephone conference with the parties on March
27, 2012 (Docket Entry 20) the Magistrate Judge pointed out that if
there were problems with discovery “The remedy is a telephone
conference with the Magistrate Judge about the matter. . .”
In this case Plaintiff’s counsel has not followed the
telephone conference procedure, but has invoked an actual motion.
The requirements concerning discovery motions is set out in Local
Rule 37.01.

In this case there is no joint statement of the

parties and the motion does not follow the procedure set forth in
Rule 37.01(b)(2).

The

Magistrate

Judge

further

considers

that

a

certification that counsel has written the other side a letter and
has not received a response is not a true effort to resolve the
issue by agreement.

After the parties have conferred they may

contact the Magistrate Judge’s office to schedule a telephone
conference call about this matter.

Three days prior to the

telephone conference the parties will submit a joint statement of
what issues remain unresolved.
The

Magistrate

Judge

would

note

that

some

of

the

objections are clearly not well taken, such as Interrogatory 3.
Whether the information is available to the Plaintiff or not, this
is information that the Defendant should have readily had at their
disposal and the interrogatory should have been answered.
On the other hand some of the Plaintiff’s requests, such
as

“Each

and

every

claim

of

racial

harassment

or

racial

discrimination from January 2005 until the present” while not vague
is overly broad.

The response does admit that relevant admissible

evidence would include only that information that is applicable to
claims

of

racial

discrimination

against

the

same

responsible

management office for the three-year period prior to the subject
nonselection leading to Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination, which
Plaintiff has yet to identify.

Since the Defendant admits that

this would be relevant and admissible, they should have at least
provided this amount of information.

2

The same comments would apply to Interrogatory 8.
Concerning Interrogatory 9, facts and witnesses which
support a defendant’s defenses or affirmative defenses should be
disclosed as part of their Rule 26 disclosures.

An answer that

something will be provided later is unsatisfactory, particularly
without giving a date by which it will be provided.
Interrogatory 21 does appear overly broad and should be
limited to information concerning the issues raised in this case,
and not any communication the Plaintiff might have had at any time
with the Department of Defense.
The Magistrate Judge trusts that the parties will greatly
narrow these issues if they need to pursue this matter.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3