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.

Sarnowski v. Peters

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division

October 20, 2017

KATHERINE SARNOWSKI, Personal Representative of the Estate of Damion Banks, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

         Before 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 Compel.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Under 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 benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

         “Failure 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 . . . .”).

         If the 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).

         A party 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).

         ANALYSIS

         Defendants 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.

         In her 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.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         The Court has reviewed defendants' discovery requests and finds that they are relevant and proportional, ...


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.