United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
RUBY HOOKER, ET AL.
RICKY CAMPBELL, ET AL.
L. HORNSBY MAG. JUDGE.
G. JAMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is an appeal of a magistrate judge order, styled as
“Objections to Magistrate's Memorandum Opinion,
” [Doc. No. 53] filed by Plaintiffs Ruby Hooker and
Alice Hooker. Defendant Franklin Parish Police Jury opposes
Plaintiffs' appeal. [Doc. No. 55]. For reasons assigned
below, the appeal is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's
Order [Doc. No. 52] is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed two motions to compel. Defendant filed the first motion
on March 3, 2017, alleging that Plaintiffs failed to respond
to discovery, even after an extension of time. [Doc. No. 28].
Defendant added that its counsel called and emailed
Plaintiffs' counsel prior to filing the motion, but
counsel failed to respond. Id. On March 6, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Hornsby granted the motion but declined to
award attorneys' fees. [Doc. No. 29].
filed a second motion on August 18, 2017, seeking to compel
Plaintiffs to respond to the following interrogatory, which
is comprised of four subparts:
a) Please underline the exact part of each document
you will rely on to establish any of the claims of your
b) Please explain how underlined part [sic] of each
document establishes the alleged discrimination against you
by the Franklin Parish Police Jury; or
c) If the underlined part of each document does not establish
discrimination against you by the Franklin Parish Police
Jury, please explain how the underlined part of each
document otherwise establishes any fact alleged in your
d) Please return the underlined copies (with your explanation
referenced immediately above) to undersigned counsel.
[Doc. Nos. 36; 36-4, p. 1-2]. Like before, Defendant alleged
that, despite granting Plaintiffs an extension of time,
Plaintiffs did not respond to the interrogatory, and their
counsel did not respond to calls or emails. [Doc. No. 36].
August 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge granted the second
motion and ordered Plaintiffs to respond to the interrogatory
and to pay Defendant $400.00 in attorneys' fees. [Doc.
No. 38]. The Magistrate Judge awarded attorneys' fees
“[b]ecause this was the second time the court had to
order Plaintiffs to respond to discovery . . . .”
August 29, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Magistrate Judge to
reconsider the August 21, 2017 Order, arguing that the
interrogatory sought their counsel's work product and
mental impressions. Id. [Doc. No. 40-2]. On
September 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion
It was only after the court's order was issued that
Plaintiffs asserted objections to the discovery at issue in