United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
TAYLOR TRUCK LINE, INC., ET AL. R & L BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., ET AL.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., ET AL.
L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the
District Court, are two discovery-related motions [doc. #s
236 & 237], as twice supplemented [doc. #s 274 &
281], and associated requests for sanctions, filed by
defendants, Taylor Truck Line Inc., Taylor Logistics Inc,
College City Leasing, LLC, Daniel Shackleford, and Taylor
Consolidated Inc. (collectively, “Taylor”). The
motions, as supplemented, are opposed. For reasons explained
below, the motions are DENIED.
October 10, 2016, Taylor filed the instant motions to compel
Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UPRC”): 1) to
respond to outstanding discovery responses, and 2) to produce
documents in response to two subpoenas and to schedule the
deposition of Doug Woods. Specifically, the former motion
sought an order compelling UPRC to provide responses to
Taylor's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Sets of
Interrogatories, plus its Second and Third Sets of Request
for production. The latter motion sought an order compelling
UPRC to respond to Taylor's subpoenas served on July 22
and August 25, 2016, and to compel the deposition of
UPRC's 30(b)(6) witness, Doug Woods.
the parties' ongoing ameliorative efforts, on December
30, 2016, Taylor supplemented its motions to narrow the scope
of the disputed discovery. On February 8, 2017, Taylor again
supplemented its motions to winnow down the discovery impasse
to one interrogatory, and two items of documents that were
listed in the records subpoenas.
February 9, 2017, the court ordered UPRC to file a response
to the motions by February 21, 2017. (Feb. 9, 2017, Order
[doc. # 282]). On February 21, 2017, UPRC filed its
“supplemental” opposition to Taylor's motions to
compel. [doc. # 285]. Taylor did not file a reply. The matter
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [doc. # 236]
provides that a party may serve an interrogatory on another
party that relates to any matter that may be inquired into
under Rule 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2). The interrogatories
must be answered by the party to whom they are directed.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1). A party seeking discovery may move for
an order compelling production against another party when the
latter has failed to answer an interrogatory. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). An evasive or incomplete response
is treated as a failure to respond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).
[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties 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, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to 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. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
courts understand the rule to provide for broad and liberal
discovery. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104,
114-5 (1964); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507,
67 S.Ct. 385 (1947). Nonetheless, the scope of discovery is
limited by relevance, albeit “relevance” is ...