RUSSELL SKELTON JR v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (2024)

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 12) filed by Defendants Liberty Personal Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company on June 13, 2024. In their Motion, Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff Russell J. Skelton, Jr., to respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and to deem admitted Requests for Admission, all propounded by them on April 23, 2024.¹ Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Compel, and the deadline for filing an opposition has passed. See Local Civil Rule 7(f) (responses to motions are due within 21 days). As such, the Court considers Defendants' Motion unopposed.

I. Defendants' Discovery Requests

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, a party upon whom interrogatories and requests for production of documents have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, to such discovery requests within thirty days after service of the requests. Nisiewicz v. Lovett, No. 11-159, 2012 WL 170177, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 19, 2012), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34. If a party fails to respond fully to discovery requests in the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery may move to compel responses and for appropriate sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See, e.g., Lauter v. SZR Second Baton Rouge Assisted Living, LLC, No. 20-813, 2021 WL 2006297 (M.D. La. May 19, 2021). Similarly, Rule 36 requires responses to requests for admission within 30 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Rule 36 further mandates that failure to respond in that time results in the matter being admitted. Id. “Rule 36 is unambiguous regarding the consequences of failing to respond to a request for admission: absent a timely response, ‘[a] matter is admitted.’ ” Yinerson, LLC v. Farmers Rice Milling Co., LLC, No. 19-407, 2022 WL 3704147, at *2 (M.D. La. Jul. 27, 2022), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).

Here, as alleged by Defendants, they propounded written Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission on Plaintiff on April 23, 2024.² After receiving no timely responses from Plaintiff, defense counsel, on June 3, 2024, sent an email to Plaintiff's counsel, scheduling a Rule 37 conference for June 5, 2024.³ During said Rule 37 conference, defense counsel granted Plaintiff's counsel a seven-day extension, until June 12, 2024, to respond to the written discovery.⁴ However, no discovery responses have yet been received by Defendants.⁵

As stated above, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this Motion to Compel, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Thus the Court considers this Motion unopposed. In addition, Defendants represent in their Motion to Compel that Plaintiff's counsel previously agreed to respond to Defendants' discovery requests and was given an extension to do so. As such, the Court will grant Defendants' request and order Plaintiff to respond fully to Defendants' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within 15 days of the date of this Order. In addition, at his own risk and to his detriment, Plaintiff ignored Defendants' Requests for Admission, even after requesting an extension to respond. He then proceeded to ignore Defendants' Motion to Compel in which Defendants specifically request that their requests be deemed admitted. Under these circumstances, the appropriate sanction is to grant Defendants' request and deem their Requests for Admission “conclusively established” for all future purposes related to this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).

II. Award of Expenses

In addition, Defendants seek “expenses incurred in filing this motion.”⁶ Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel discovery is granted, the court must, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay to the moving party's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant first making a good faith effort to obtain the discovery without court action; that the party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Here, Plaintiff failed to respond not only to Defendants' efforts to obtain the requested discovery responses, but also to the instant Motion to Compel. Moreover, the record indicates that none of the statutory exceptions to an award of expenses applies.

Although seeking expenses associated with filing this Motion, Defendants have not filed anything in the record demonstrating the amount of expenses incurred. Plaintiff has been given an opportunity to be heard, but he has not opposed Defendants' request for an award. Given Plaintiff's failure to provide any discovery responses and the clear language of Rule 37, the Court finds an award of some amount is justified.

This Court has previously awarded a $500 lump sum where the responding party failed to provide any discovery responses, and the movant did not provide evidence of their actual costs and fees. Shelton v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., No. 22-337, 2023 WL 1425321, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2023). As in the current matter, Shelton involved multiple discovery failures as well as a failure to respond to the motion to compel. See id. (“Plaintiff has failed to respond not only to Defendants' efforts to obtain the requested discovery responses, but also to the instant Motion to Compel․ Defendants, therefore, are entitled to reasonable expenses ․ [H]owever, [they] did not file anything ․ demonstrating the amount of expenses and attorneys' fees incurred ․ A review of the Motion and supporting memorandum supports the conclusion that an award of $500.00 is reasonable.”). A review of the instant Motion and supporting memorandum within this context supports the conclusion that an award of $500 is reasonable.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 12) is GRANTED. Defendants' Requests for Admission are deemed admitted and conclusively established pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. In addition, within 15 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff Russell J. Skelton, Jr. is ordered to provide complete written responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents propounded to him on or about April 23, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendants' reasonable expenses in the amount of $500 within 15 days of the date of this Order.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 16, 2024.

FOOTNOTES

1.   R. Doc. 12-1 at 1.

2.   R. Doc. 12-1 at 1; R. Doc. 12-2.

3.   R. Doc. 12-1 at 1; R. Doc. 12-3 at 1.

4.   R. Doc. 12-1 at 1; R. Doc. 12-3 at 1.

5.   R. Doc. 12-1 at 1-2.

6.   R. Doc. 12-1 at 2.

SCOTT D. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE