Wright v. Board of Commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GENE WRIGHT, JR., WR AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-644-SDD-RLB BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel filed on November 16, 2021. (R. Doc. 46). The deadline for filing an opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the motion is unopposed. On August 18, 2021, Gene Wright, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) served his First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on the Board of Commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System (“Defendant”). (R. Doc. 46-3). 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). On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email requesting a discovery conference as the discovery responses had not yet been provided. (R. Doc. 46-4 at 2). On October 27, 2021, the parties held a discovery conference and defense counsel agreed to request a specific deadline to provide discovery responses by the end of the next day. (R. Doc. 46-4 at 1). On November 1, 2021, the parties agreed that Defendant would have until November 15, 2021 to provide the discovery responses, or Plaintiff would file an appropriate motion to compel. (R. Doc. 46-4 at 1). Defendant did not provide any responses by this agreed-upon deadline. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, which seeks an award of $500.00 in attorney’s fees with respect to the filing of the instant motion. (R. Doc. 46). As Defendant did not make any timely objections to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests within the time agreed upon by the parties, 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. Truckle Servs., Inc., No. 09-3862, 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 First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (R. Doc. 46-3) without any objections other than those pertaining to any applicable privileges or immunities. Given the record, including Defendant’s failure to file any opposition, the Court will also award Plaintiff the recovery of reasonable expenses incurred in making the instant motion, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 46) is GRANTED. Defendant must provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (R. Doc. 46-3), 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion to Compel, and that Defendant shall be responsible for such payment. In connection with this award, the parties are to do the following: (1) If the parties are able to resolve this among themselves or otherwise agree to a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs,1 Defendant shall pay that amount; (2) If the parties do not agree to a resolution, Plaintiff may, within 14 days of the docketing of this Order, file a Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to Rule 37, setting forth the reasonable amount of costs and attorney’s fees (including evidentiary support) incurred in obtaining this Order; and (3) Defendant shall, within 7 days of the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion, file any opposition pertaining to the imposition of the amounts requested by Plaintiff, in satisfaction of his “opportunity to be heard” regarding the payment of fees and expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5). Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 8, 2021. S RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. U NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 This Court has previously found that a relatively modest award was reasonable under similar circumstances and also recognizes that a reasonable award under Rule 37 may be less than the actual fees incurred. See Talley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., No. 16-406, ECF No. 15 (M.D. La. Dec. 9, 2016). That said, the Talley case was five years ago and the requested fee of $500 may be easily supported and reasonable under the circumstances of this case.