United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
KATHERINE SARNOWSKI, Personal Representative of the Estate of Damion Banks, Plaintiff,
COLLETTE PETERS, Personally; TONIA RIDLEY, Personally; BRIDGETT WHELAN, Personally; JOHN MYRICK, Personally; and SGT. ANNETTE HOUSTON, Personally, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is defendants' Motion to Compel Response to
Defendants' First Request for Production of Documents and
First Request for Interrogatories. (Docket No. 37). In her
response to defendants' Motion, plaintiff claims she has
cured any deficiencies in her responses to defendants'
discovery requests. (Docket No. 41). The Court has detailed
the factual and procedural background of the parties'
discovery disputes in its earlier Opinion and Order on
plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 44). For the
following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' Motion to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv), a party may move for
an order compelling answers to interrogatories or the
production of requested documents.
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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
to object to a discovery request within the time permitted by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or within the time to
which the parties have agreed, constitutes a waiver of any
objection.” L.R. 26-5(a); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“Any ground not stated in a timely
objection is waived . . . .”).
court grants a motion to compel discovery responses,
“the court must, after giving an opportunity
to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct
necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that
conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses
incurred in making the motion, including attorney's
fees.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added).
who “fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery” may be sanctioned, including by rendering
default judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A)(vi).
seek an order compelling plaintiff to respond to their First
Request for Production of Documents and First Set of
Interrogatories. Defendants served those discovery requests,
along with their First Request for Admissions, on April 7,
2017. Washington Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1-3 (Docket No. 38).
Plaintiff's responses to those requests were due May 8,
2017. Id. On May 8, 2017, plaintiff provided
“partial responses” to the requests for
admission, but no responses to the requests for production or
interrogatories. Id. ¶ 3. On May 9, 2017,
defendants emailed plaintiff's counsel asking when they
could expect responses to the requests for production and
interrogatories, and plaintiff's counsel responded,
“Soon.” Id., Ex. 4. On May 10, 2017,
defendants again emailed plaintiff's counsel, stating
that because plaintiff failed to respond to the requests for
production or interrogatories, she waived her right to object
to those requests. Id., Ex. 5; Fed.R.Civ.P.
33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Defendants also stated that because
plaintiff had failed to respond to certain requests for
admission, those requests would be deemed admitted pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3). Washington Decl., Ex. 5 (Docket No.
38). “As of the date of the filing of Defendants'
Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has yet to serve Defendants with
any responses or objections to Defendants' discovery
requests.” Id. ¶ 3.
response to defendants' Motion, plaintiff asserts that
“Defendants did not properly confer by phone or
otherwise, prior to filing this Motion to Compel.” Pl.
Resp., at 1 (Docket No. 41). “However, ”
plaintiff continues, “the issue is moot as Plaintiff
has already produced responses this week that shall cure the
deficiencies.” Id. Plaintiff filed that
Response on July 27, 2017. That Response provides no
substantive objection to defendants' requests or Motion.
argument that defendants did not comply with Local Rule
7-1(a)(1)(A)'s conferral requirement is misplaced; the
June 14, 2017, Status Conference, in which the Court
addressed the parties' discovery disputes and gave them
thirty days to submit their motions to compel (Docket No.
36), was the conferral.
Court has reviewed defendants' discovery requests and
finds that they are relevant and proportional, ...