United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MICHAEL T. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Sanctions Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2)  filed by Defendants Tammy Cooley,
Walter Cooley, and Sunrise Trading Post, LLC. Having
considered the parties' submissions, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be
declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff Grain Dealers Mutual
Insurance Company seeks a declaration that its policy with
the Defendants precludes coverage for third-party claims
relating to a gasoline leak that occurred at the
Defendants' gas station. Specifically, Plaintiff argues
that the policy's pollution exclusion precludes coverage
for claims relating to the leeching of gasoline into the soil
and/or water on neighboring landowners' properties.
28, 2016, the Court entered a Case Management Order 
which set a discovery deadline of January 10, 2017. On
November 9, 2016, more than four months after the Court
entered the Case Management Order, Defendants served
interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and
requests for admissions on Plaintiff. See Notices
  . On December 13, 2016, Plaintiff served its
discovery responses. See Notice . The parties
had disagreements over several discovery requests and
responses, and on December 21, 2016, the Court conducted a
discovery conference and set an expedited briefing schedule
for any discovery motions because of the then-approaching
discovery deadline. See Order .
December 27, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel .
On January 6, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Motion to Compel . See Order . The
Court also extended the discovery deadline to January 17,
2017, for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiff to produce
the discovery ordered by the Court. Id.
December 16, 2016, Defendants provided Plaintiff a draft
30(b)(6) notice and requested dates for Plaintiff's
30(b)(6) deposition. On the discovery deadline, January 10,
2017, Defendants deposed Plaintiff. On January
23, 2017, the Court conducted a telephonic conference with
the parties regarding their disputes arising from this
deposition, and the Court set an expedited briefing schedule
for any discovery motion relating to the deposition.
See Order .
January 26, 2017, Defendants filed the instant Motion ,
arguing that the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel during
the deposition frustrated the fair examination of Plaintiff.
Defendants seek attorney's fees and costs and permission
to reconvene the deposition. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
30(d)(2), this Court “may impose an appropriate
sanction-including the reasonable expenses and attorney's
fees incurred by any party-on a person who impedes, delays,
or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.”
discovery deadline expired on January 10, 2017, the Court
must address the timing of the instant Motion . Local
Rule 7(b)(2)(C) dictates that “[a] party must file a
discovery motion sufficiently in advance of the discovery
deadline to allow response to the motion, ruling by the court
and time to effectuate the court's order before the
discovery deadline.” Defendant filed the instant Motion
on January 26, 2017, sixteen days after the discovery
argue that the timing of the subject deposition and the
instant Motion resulted from Plaintiff's “improper
conduct” with regard to Defendants' discovery
requests. As previously mentioned, the Court entered the Case
Management Order  on June 28, 2016, and Defendants waited
more than four months-until November 9, 2016-to serve
discovery requests on Plaintiff. See Notices 
 . On December 27, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to
Compel  regarding Plaintiff's discovery responses,
and the Court granted the Motion  in part. See
Order . The Court, however, did not find that Plaintiff
had acted in bad faith or taken any dilatory actions.
Instead, the Court resolved a good-faith disagreement between
the parties regarding the proper scope of discovery. The fact
that this disagreement over written discovery was not
resolved until four days prior to the discovery deadline is
primarily the result of Defendants' four-month delay in
conducting discovery in this action.
the fact that the parties were granted more than six months
to conduct discovery, Defendants did not depose Plaintiff
until the discovery deadline. Now, the discovery deadline has
long passed, and Defendants have not established good cause
for the Court to address the parties' discovery disputes.
See Grey v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 265
Fed.App'x. 342, 348 (5th Cir. 2008); Turnage v.
General Elec. Co., 953 F.2d 206, 209 (5th Cir. 1992);
Teeuwissen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 WL
1969063, at *3 (S.D.Miss. May 31, 2012) (“With
Plaintiffs having disregarded the discovery process for
months, the Court is not in a position to now entertain
numerous untimely motions to compel, for sanctions, or other
after a careful review of the deposition, the Court finds
that the Motion  should be denied on its merits. Although
there were a number of unnecessary objections,
Plaintiff's counsel did not frustrate the examination of
the deponent to such an extent that remedial actions are
necessary or appropriate.
the “form” objections were arguably meritorious,
though counsel plainly overused the objection. Defendants
were able to complete the deposition and obtain sufficiently
responsive answers to the questions posed to Plaintiff.
Moreover, Defendants point to no specific information that
they were unable to obtain or could not have obtained during
THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Sanctions