United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION
C. WILKINSON, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Motion to Compel and Extend Deadlines, Record Doc. No. 23, is
pending before me. Defendant filed a timely opposition
memorandum. Record Doc. No. 27. Having considered the record,
the applicable law and the written submissions of counsel, IT
IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART as follows.
motion specifically identifies alleged deficiencies only in
defendant's responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 13,
14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25 and Requests for Production
Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10. Although the motion sometimes seems
to take exception with defendant's discovery responses
generally, the court is able to address only those particular
requests identified in the motion and not some more
initially that through its foot-dragging and dilatory
conduct, defendant has waived all objections to the subject
discovery requests. Failure to provide written answers to
interrogatories waives all objections to the interrogatories
unless the court excuses the failure for good cause.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4). In addition, failure to provide
specific written responses to requests for production within
the time period established by Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b) generally
results in the waiver of objections to the requests. See
Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 74 (7th Cir.
1992) (party “waived any objection to production by
failing to object when disclosure was due”); Marx
v. Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8, 10,
12-13 (1st Cir. 1991) (objections to requests for production
were waived by failure to make timely objections);
McLeod, Alexander, Powell & Apffel v. Quarles,
894 F.2d 1482, 1484 (5th Cir. 1990) (vague objections lacking
in specificity held invalid); In re United States,
864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[A]s a general
rule, when a party fails to object timely to interrogatories,
production requests, or other discovery efforts, objections
thereto are waived.”).
served these interrogatories and requests for production on
November 28, 2016. Responses and/or objections were therefore
due on December 28, 2016. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2) and
34(b)(2)(A). No written stipulation to extend this deadline
was obtained. Fed.R.Civ.P. 29(b). No court order extending
the deadline was obtained. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Instead,
defendant delayed without cause until March 16, 2017, to
provide largely deficient responses riddled with baseless
objections. No attempt by defendant to establish good cause
for its delay has been made. Under these circumstances, I
find that defendant has waived all of its objections.
motion is denied as to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 4, subject
to the supplementation order contained herein. The answers
are sufficient, as long as they are true. Defendant is
specifically warned that if these answers are inaccurate or
incomplete in any way, they must be supplemented as required
in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(B) no later than the deadline set
herein, failing which defendant may be bound to this answer
at trial by an order prohibiting it from calling as witnesses
any person it should have identified in response to these
motion is granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 20. The
answers refer vaguely to “maintenance records”
and “other records” that were either not produced
or produced in bulk. These answers fail to comply with the
specificity requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)(1). In
addition, the objections asserted in response to
Interrogatory No. 20 were waived and are overruled. Defendant
must provide full and complete narrative answers to these
interrogatories and specifically identify any
documents setting out the subject “procedures”
and maintenance requests.
motion is granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 14, 18, 23, 24
and 25. The objections have been waived by defendant's
dilatory conduct in failing to provide timely responses
and/or objections. Full and complete narrative answers to
these Interrogatories must be provided.
motion is granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 16 and 17. The
current answers are no answers at all. Full and complete
narrative answers to these interrogatories must be provided.
addition, I note that the copy of interrogatory answers
provided to me in connection with this motion does not
include the verification of interrogatory answers, sworn
under oath, required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1)(B), (3) and
(5). The required verification must be provided.
motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 3. All
objections have been waived and are overruled. Defendant must
provide a new written response to this request clearly
stating either that all materials responsive to this request
have been produced, and actually producing all such
materials, or that defendant has no responsive materials in
its possession, custody or control.
motion is granted as to Requests for Production Nos. 4, 7, 9
and 10. The current responses are no responses at all.
Defendant must provide new written responses to these
requests clearly stating either that all materials responsive
to these requests have been produced, and actually producing
all such materials, or that defendant has no responsive
materials in its possession, custody or control.
additional interrogatory answers, together with the required
verification; all supplementation of responses to existing
discovery requests; all written responses to requests for
production; and actual production of all responsive materials