Carver v. Capital Area Transit System ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TIMOTHY L. CARVER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-281-RLB CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Discovery filed on November 8, 2021. (R. Doc. 17). The deadline for filing an opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the motion is unopposed. On September 20, 2021, Timothy L. Carver (“Plaintiff”) served his First Set of Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Capital Area Transit System (“Defendant”). (R. Doc. 17-2). Defendant had 30 days to respond to the written discovery requests after they were served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiff represents that his counsel attempted, but failed, to confer with Defendant to obtain the discovery responses on November 1, 2021 and November 4, 2021 by email and telephone. (R. Doc. 17 at 1). Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to all of his discovery requests. Because Rule 36 is self-executing, Defendant is deemed to have admitted Plaintiff’s two requests for admission by default. “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Rule 36(b) provides that “[a] matter admitted . . . is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 36(b); see In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[A] deemed admission can only be withdrawn or amended by motion in accordance with Rule 36(b).”). “[T]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Accordingly, the Court will not order any responses to Plaintiff’s two requests for admission, which are deemed admitted under Rule 36. Defendant must file an appropriate motion to withdraw or amend the deemed admissions. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks an order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents. As Defendant did not make any timely objections to these discovery requests, or otherwise opposed the instant motion, the Court finds that Defendant has waived its objections to the discovery requests, 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-cv-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.”). Accordingly, the Court will require Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production without any objections other than those pertaining to any applicable privileges or immunities. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Discovery (R. Doc. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant must provide responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (R. Doc. 17-2), without any objections other than those pertaining to any applicable privileges or immunities, within 7 days of the date of this Order, or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 1, 2021. S RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE