United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. Poplin United States Magistrate Judge.
case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses, Deem Requests Admitted, and Amend
Scheduling Order [Doc. 12]. Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendant's Motion, and the time for doing so has
expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2 (“Failure to
respond to a motion may be deemed a waiver of any opposition
to the relief sought.”). Accordingly, the Court has
considered Defendant's requests and finds them to be well
taken in part, and therefore, Defendant's Motion is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
instant Motion, Defendant requests that the Court: (1) compel
Plaintiff to respond to written discovery, (2) deem requests
for admission admitted, and (3) amend the Scheduling Order.
For grounds, Defendant states that it served its First
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to
Plaintiff on December 7, 2018. In addition, on the same day,
Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission
pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 36. Defendant states
that as of the date of its Motion, Plaintiff has not
responded to the above discovery requests.
explains that it contacted Plaintiff on numerous occasions,
but Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests.
Defendant includes a certification [Doc. 12-1], stating that
it attempted to confer in good faith with Plaintiff in order
to resolve the pending discovery disputes, but such attempts
have been unsuccessful.
Court will address Defendant's requests separately.
Compel Discovery Responses
mentioned above, Defendant served its First Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff on
December 7, 2018. Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendant's discovery requests, and he has not filed a
response to the instant Motion.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and (b), a party may
move for an order compelling answers to interrogatories and
production of documents. Because Plaintiff did not respond to
the Motion, and has not complied with his discovery
obligations, the Court finds Defendant's request well
taken. Plaintiff SHALL respond to
Defendant's First Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents within fourteen (14) days of entry of
the instant Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff is hereby
ADMONISHED that the failure to respond may
warrant sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this
action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
also seeks reasonable expenses, including attorney's
fees, associated with filing the Motion. Pursuant to Rule
If the motion is granted . . . the court, must, after giving
an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney
advising the conduct, or both to pay the movant's
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including
the attorney's fees.
under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the Court cannot award reasonable
expenses if the movant failed to file the good-faith
certification, the opposing party's nondisclosure was
substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award
of expenses unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).
mentioned above, Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendant's discovery requests, despite repeated requests
to do so, and he has not responded to the instant Motion. The
Court finds an award of reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, appropriate in this matter. See
Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 254
F.R.D. 470, 472 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (explaining that defendant
was on notice that plaintiff sought reasonable attorney's
fees and had an opportunity to be heard when it responded to
plaintiff's motion to compel); Sebring Homes Corp. v.
T.R. Arnold & Assocs., Inc.,927 F.Supp. 1098, 1104
(N.D. Ind. 1995) (explaining that plaintiffs had an
opportunity to be heard but did not respond to the
defendant's motion and that the “court can consider
such questions on written submissions as well as on oral
hearings”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 advisory
committee's note to 1993 amendment). Further, because
Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion, the Court cannot
find that his nondisclosure was substantially justified or
that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. ...