Kerusch v. FordHarrison LLP, et al.

Filing 42

ORDER denying 39 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 8/8/2018. (Pham, Tu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________
BELINDA F. KERUSCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORDHARRISON LLP,
and
LOUIS P. BRITT, III, in his
capacity as Office Managing
Partner of FordHarrison LLPMemphis,
Defendants.

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

17-cv-2059-SHM-tmp

_________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
_________________________________________________________________
Before the court is pro se plaintiff Belinda F. Kerusch’s
Second Motion to Compel, filed on July 20, 2018.1

(ECF No. 39.)

Defendants FordHarrison LLP and Luis P. Britt, III (collectively
“FordHarrison”) responded on July 24, 2018.

(ECF No. 40.)

On July 10, 2018, FordHarrison responded to Kerusch’s first
set of interrogatories and request for documents.
1.)

Kerusch found these documents lacking and requested additional

information.

1This

(ECF No. 40 at

Accordingly, on July 18, 2018, FordHarrison provided

case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge
for management and for all pretrial matters for determination
and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (ECF No. 23.)

Kerusch with an additional 1,600 pages of discovery.
at 3; ECF No. 40 at 2.)

(ECF No. 39

Kerusch argues that this discovery is

incomplete and inaccurate; although, she does not provide discrete
examples of how it is insufficient.
sanction

FordHarrison

discovery.

and

compel

She asks that the court
it

to

provide

sufficient

She also states that, after reviewing the discovery,

she decided that she needed to take at least eight additional
depositions.

Thus, she also asks that the court extend the

discovery deadline.
FordHarrison

states

that

it

has

attempted

on

multiple

occasions to consult with Kerusch in order to review her concerns
about the discovery that it provided to her.

(ECF No. 40 at 2–3.)

Also, it has scheduled the nine depositions Kerusch requested to
occur before the discovery deadline.

(ECF No. 40 at 5.)

In light of the ongoing consultation process, the court finds
that Kerusch’s motion is premature.

In addition, because her

motion does not explain how the provided discovery is lacking, the
court cannot determine whether there is any validity to her claims.
Finally, she has not shown that she needs the discovery deadline
extended.

For these reasons, her motion to compel, for sanctions,

and to extend the discovery deadline is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
United States Magistrate Judge
-2-

August 8, 2018
Date

-3-