Williams v. SESAC Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/1/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

ARCHBISHOP JOCITA CABRINI
WILLIAMS, PhD, DD,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs.

SESAC, INC., and
SESAC, LLC,
Defendants/Counterclaimants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:12-1309
JUDGE TRAUGER/KNOWLES

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ “Motion to Compel.” Docket No. 45.
Defendant seeks an Order compelling Plaintiff to submit initial disclosures as required by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and to respond specifically to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. The Motion also seeks “such sanctions as
the Court deems just.”
Defendants aver that the written discovery was served upon Plaintiff on November 18,
2013. Docket No. 45-1, p. 1. On January 2, 2014, counsel for Defendants contacted Plaintiff by
telephone. Plaintiff made a representation that she would “answer” the discovery requests
“pursuant to the law” by the end of the following week. She apparently did not do so, however,
and submitted “Objections” to the written discovery on January 9, 2014. Docket No. 42.
The instant Motion was filed February 4, 2014. Plaintiff has not responded to the instant

Motion.1
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion to Compel (Docket No. 45) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall provide her initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and shall
properly respond to the written discovery referred to above on or before April 21, 2014. In
responding to the written discovery, the Court expects Plaintiff to comply with the Local Rules
of Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require separate answers to each
discovery request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

1

As discussed above, Plaintiff’s “response” to Defendants’ counsel was a series of nonspecific objections to the discovery requests. Plaintiff’s “Objections” are plainly not a response
to the instant Motion, as those Objections were filed before the instant Motion.
2