United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 11)
filed on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed a response
within the time allowed by Local Rule 7(f). Accordingly, the
Motion is unopposed.
12, 2017, Edelmiro Guerra (“Plaintiff”) commenced
this action against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and
Applebee's Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Applebee's Grill
& Bar, alleging that he incurred personal injuries when
he slipped and fell in the men's room of an
Applebee's Grill & Bar in Hammond, Louisiana. (R.
Doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently amended the Complaint by
removing Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as a defendant, and
naming Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Southern River
Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Applebee's Grill & Bar as
defendants. (R. Doc. 4).
August 22, 2017, Southern River Restaurants, LLC,
Applebee's Restaurants, LLC, and Ohio Casualty Insurance
Company (collectively, “Defendants”) served
Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Plaintiff. (R.
September 26, 2017, defense counsel wrote to Plaintiff's
counsel requesting information on the outstanding discovery
requests by 4:30 p.m. on October 19, 2017. (R. Doc. 11-4).
October 4, 2017, defense counsel held a telephone conference
with Plaintiff's counsel. (R. Doc. 11-5). While
Defendants extended the deadline to respond to the discovery
requests to October 18, 2017, they reserved the right to file
an appropriate motion if Plaintiff did not provide responses
by October 19, 2017. (R. Doc. 11-5).
October 25, 2017, Defendants filed the instant motion. (R.
Doc. 11). Defense counsel certifies that Plaintiff had not
responded to the outstanding discovery requests as of the
date of the motion. (R. Doc. 11-2).
stated above, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the
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
incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as
a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
has not opposed this motion or otherwise filed an indication
in the record that responses to written discovery requests
have been provided. As Plaintiff did not make any timely
objections, the Court finds that it has waived its objections
to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for
Production, with the exception of those pertaining to any
applicable privileges or immunities. See 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.”); B&S
Equip. Co. v. Truckla Servs., Inc., No. 09-cv-3862, 2011
WL 2637289, at *6 (E.D. La. July 6, 2011) (finding waiver of