Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tigler v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

August 21, 2019

BRENT TIGLER
v.
STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

          ORDER

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before 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.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff 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).

         On January 9, 2019, Starr served Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Plaintiff. (R. Docs. 15-2, 15-3).[1] 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 provide responses.

         After 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).

         Starr 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.

         11. Law and Analysis

         “Unless 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).

         The 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 requests.”).

         The 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.

         Request for Production No. 1.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         Request for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.