United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendants Baton Rouge Police Department through
the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, a
political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, Cpl. Troy
McCreary, and Officer Ory Holmes' (collectively,
“Movants”) Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc.
17) filed on June 14, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed a
response within the time allowed by Local Rule 7(f).
Accordingly, the Motion is unopposed.
a civil rights action initiated by Blake Huval
(“Plaintiff”) in state court and subsequently
removed by one of the defendants. (R. Doc. 1). Among other
things, Plaintiff alleges that in light of injuries suffered
during a wrongful arrest, he has sustained a loss of wages
and wage-earning capacity. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 6).
9, 2017, Movants requested Plaintiff to supplement his
responses to previously served discovery requests:
Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 19, and Request for Production Nos.
1, 2, and 3. (R. Doc. 17-3 at 5-6). It is unclear from the
record, however, when these previously served discovery
requests were actually served on Plaintiff, and to what
extent, if any, Plaintiff responded or objected to those
discovery requests in a timely manner. That same day, Movants
served a single Supplemental Request for Production of
Documents on Plaintiff (“Request for Production No.
8”). (R. Doc. 17-3 at 7-10).
assert that pursuant to Rules 33(b)(2) and 34(b)(2)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff had until June 8,
2017 to respond to the request for supplemental responses and
the supplemental request for production. (R. Doc. 17-1 at 1).
8, 2017, Movants' counsel sent an email to
Plaintiff's counsel to check on the status of
Plaintiff's responses. (R. Doc. 17-4 at 2).
Plaintiff's counsel responded the next day that the
responses would likely be provided by the beginning of the
following week. (R. Doc. 17-4 at 2).
13, 2017, Movants' counsel attempted to contact
Plaintiff's counsel to schedule a Rule 37(a)(1)
conference, but was informed that Plaintiff's counsel was
out of the country until June 23, 2017. (R. Doc. 17-4 at 1;
R. Doc. 17-5).
14, 2017, the deadline to complete non-expert discovery,
Movants filed the instant motion. (R. Doc. 17).
Law and Analysis
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 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