United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses (R. Doc. 9) filed on May 26, 2017. Plaintiff did
not file an opposition to the instant motion within 21 days
after service of the motion. Accordingly, the motion is
unopposed. LR 7(f).
a personal injury action involving a motor vehicle collision.
(R. Doc. 1-2). Heather Tredrick (“Plaintiff”)
named as defendants the other driver, Bazunu D. Ekugbere, and
his insurer, Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of
Michigan (collectively, “Defendants”).
February 23, 2017, Defendants removed this action, asserting
that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (R. Doc. 1).
March 23, 2017, Defendants propounded Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (R. Doc.
9-3). Having received no responses within 30
days of service of the discovery, Defendants scheduled a Rule
37 discovery conference to be held on May 2, 2017. (R. Doc.
9-4). Defendants represent that at the Rule 37 discovery
conference, Defendants granted a two week extension to
respond to the discovery requests. (R. Doc. 9-4; R. Doc. 9-2
26, 2017, having received no responses within the extension
provided, Defendants filed the instant Motion. (R. Doc. 9-1
at 1). Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff to
respond to the discovery requests and for an award of
reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion. (R. Doc.
9-1 at 3-4).
otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is
as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
non-privileged 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 be
discoverable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The court must
limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines
that: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope
permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party
or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). Rule
26(c)'s “good cause” requirement indicates
that the party seeking a protective order has the burden
“to show the necessity of its issuance, which
contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of fact
as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory
statements.” In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134
F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v.
Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)).
33 and 34 provide a party with 30 days after service of the
discovery to respond or object. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(b)(2) and 34(b)(2)(A). If a party fails to respond fully
to discovery requests made pursuant as to Rules 33 and 34 in
the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
party seeking discovery may move to compel disclosure and for
appropriate sanctions under Rule 37. An “evasive or
incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as
a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may
serve on any other party no more than 25 written
interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Here, Defendants
propounded 31 interrogatories. (R. Doc. 9-3 at 2-10).
Defendants have not submitted any evidence that the parties
stipulated that each party may serve more than 25 written
interrogatories. Moreover, the Court ...