United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is defendant Starr Indemnity & Liability
Company's (“Starr”) Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Respond to Interrogatories and Requests for
Production (R. Doc. 15) filed on July 1, 2019. On
Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition, Starr filed a
Motion for Leave to File Updated, Supplemental Memorandum in
Support of Motion to Compel seeking ruling “on the
narrower set of issues that are identified in the
supplemental memorandum” in light of certain
post-motion discovery responses. (R. Doc. 16). The Court
granted the foregoing motion, entered the Supplemental
Memorandum (R. Doc. 18) into the record, and ordered
Plaintiff to file any opposition to the instant motion, as
supplemented, by July 29, 2019. (R. Doc. 17). Plaintiff
failed to file any opposition. Accordingly, the instant
motion, as supplemented, is unopposed.
alleges that he incurred damages when his commercial truck
was rear-ended by another commercial truck on the interstate
on or about December 6, 2017. (R. Doc. 1-2). Plaintiff seeks
recovery of past and future medical expenses, pain and
suffering, mental anguish and distress, loss of enjoyment of
life, loss of income, loss of earning capacity, property
damage, and transportation expenses to and from the doctor.
(R. Doc. 1-2 at 4). The action was removed on December 26,
2018. (R. Doc. 1).
January 9, 2019, Starr served Interrogatories and Requests
for Production on Plaintiff. (R. Docs. 15-2,
15-3). According to Starr, on June 7, 2018, the
parties held a discovery conference with respect to these
discovery requests and Plaintiff agreed to provide responses
within two weeks. (R. Doc. 15-1). Starr filed the instant
Motion to Compel on July 1, 2019 after Plaintiff failed to
the filing of the instant Motion to Compel, Plaintiff
provided responses to Starr's Requests for Production on
July 11, 2019, and responses to Starr's Interrogatories
on July 17, 2019. (R. Docs. 18-1, 18-2).
is now seeking supplemental responses to Requests for
Production Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4,
8, 14, 17, 20, 21.
Law and Analysis
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 has reviewed Plaintiff's responses to Starr's
discovery requests provided after the filing of the instant
motion. Plaintiff did not make any specific objections to the
interrogatories and requests for production. Furthermore,
Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the instant motion
as supplemented. In light of the foregoing, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has waived its objections to
Starr's 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. 09-3862, 2011 WL 2637289, at
*6 (E.D. La. July 6, 2011) (finding waiver of all objections
to “discovery requests based on relevance, unduly
burdensome, over broad, or any other objection not grounded
on the attorney client or the work product
privilege.”). The Court will ignore Plaintiff's
“general objections” to the extent they do not
specifically address any particular discovery requests.
See Fed. R. Civ. 33(b)(4) (objections must be made
“with specificity”); Fed. R. Civ. P 34(b)(2)(B)
(objections must be made “with specificity” and
include reasons); see also McLeod, Alexander, Powel &
Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir.
1990) (The “party resisting discovery must show
specifically how . . . each interrogatory is not relevant or
how each question is overly broad, burdensome or
oppressive.”); Wittmann v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of
Am., No. 17-9501, 2018 WL 1912163, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr.
23, 2018) (ignoring general objections, “except insofar
as they are specifically asserted in defendant's
individualized response to particular discovery
Court has reviewed the discovery requests and responses at
issue. With the exception of Interrogatory No. 17,
Plaintiff's answers are insufficient and must be
supplemented as detailed below.
for Production No. 1.
response is insufficient. Starr seeks medical records
concerning his ability or inability to work, or his physical
or mental condition, prior to the December 6, 2017 accident.
Plaintiff must provide these records or verify that he has
signed and provided all medical release forms necessary to
obtain this information.