Ferrando v. Bouchar et al
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER granting 23 Motion to Compel; denying Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 2/17/2015. (esb)
U.S.
OiST~~i;
DISTRIC Of \'
f: f L
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
NANCY FERRANDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
SYLVAIN BOUCHARD and
LIBTEC INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2015 FEB 17 AM II: J3
Case No. 5:14-cv-00066
OPINION AND ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
WITH REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(Doc. 23)
Plaintiff Nancy Ferrando brought this action against defendants Sylvain Bouchard and his
employer, Libtec Inc., alleging that Bouchard's truck collided with the rear of Ferrando' s
automobile on Interstate 89 in Vermont as a result of his negligence. (Doc. 1.) Ferrando has
moved to compel discovery and to impose a sanction on defendants. (Doc. 23.) The court
GRANTS the motion to compel discovery and DENIES the request for sanctions.
Ferrando requests an order that defendants answer certain interrogatories and requests for
production on behalf of defendant Bouchard within five business days. (Doc. 23 at 3.)
Defendants do not oppose the discovery requested; rather, they object to the motion on the basis
that the discovery requested "will be finalized shortly." (Doc. 26 at 2.) The court GRANTS
Ferrando's motion to compel discovery, and orders defendant Bouchard to respond to Ferrando's
outstanding discovery requests within thirty (30) days. 1
1 The court overlooks Ferrando's noncompliance with Local Rule 26(d)(3)(B)--which requires
parties to include in their supporting memoranda "a specific, verbatim listing of each discovery
item sought or opposed, including the reason the item should be allowed or disallowed, except
where the motion is based upon the failure" to, inter alia, serve answers to interrogatoriesĀ
because defendants do not oppose the production request itself.
1
Ferrando also moves the court to sanction defendants with a judgment of liability in her
favor. (Doc. 23 at 3.) Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to
impose sanctions on a party for failing to comply with a court order. Additionally, severe
sanctions should only be imposed if the failure to comply with the court order "is due to
willfulness, bad faith, fault or gross negligence, rather than inability to comply or mere
oversight."Avallone v. Hofman, No. 2:06-CV-253, 2009 WL 902093, at *2 (D.
vt. Mar. 31,
2009) (internal quotation omitted). Here, no discovery order has been issued before this one, nor
does it appear that defendants have failed to produce the discovery requested willfully or in bad
faith. The sole reason for the dispute appears to be defendants' timeliness. The court therefore
does not impose a sanction on defendants in connection with their failure thus far to respond to
Ferrando's discovery requests.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff Ferrando's motion to compel discovery is
GRANTED, and her request for sanctions is DENIED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this 1i
h
day of February, 2015.
Geoffrey W. Crawford, Judge
United States District Court
2
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?