United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
A. SANDERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion
, which seeks an order compelling discovery responses
from one of the defendants, Littrell Construction Company,
LLC (“Littrell”). Having considered the motion,
the court finds that it is well taken and should be granted.
to the motion, the plaintiff originally served Littrell with
written discovery requests on November 2, 2016. The discover
requests included interrogatories and requests for production
of documents. Within thirty (30) days of propounding this
discovery, however, the plaintiff agreed to postpone the
deadline for Littrell's responses until after the
mediation scheduled for December 8th, 2016.
December 14th, 2016, following an unsuccessful
mediation, plaintiff's counsel wrote to Littrell's
counsel and requested that Littrell provide its responses to
the previously propounded discovery requests. After waiting
three weeks for discovery responses to no avail,
plaintiff's counsel sent another letter to Littrell's
counsel on January 5th, 2017, requesting that
responses be provided no later than January 9th,
2017. In this letter, plaintiff's counsel advised that a
motion to compel would be filed if the deadline was not met.
In response, Littrell's counsel responded by email on the
same day the letter was sent, indicating that Littrell's
responses could be provided within fifteen (15) days.
Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this arrangement but warned
that no further extensions could be provided. This agreement
effectively placed the deadline for Littrell's discovery
responses on January 21st, 2017.
again, however, Littrell failed to provide its responses to
the discovery requests by the January 21st
deadline. Plaintiff's counsel waited an additional four
(4) days, and when no responses were forthcoming, he emailed
a Good Faith Certificate to Littrell's counsel on January
25th, 2017, which stated that a motion to compel
would be filed if the plaintiff did not receive
Littrell's responses by January 27th, 2017.
Evidently, the Good Faith Certificate was never returned to
hundred forty-seven days have passed since Littrell was first
served with plaintiff's written discovery requests. To
date, Littrell has not served its responses, sought
additional time from the court, or sought a protective order.
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has thirty (30)
days to respond once interrogatories and requests for
production have been propounded. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2) and
34(b)(2)(A). If a party fails to respond to discovery
requests, the propounding party may file a motion to compel,
provided that the movant certifies that he has, in good
faith, conferred or attempted to confer with the party
failing to respond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (a)(1). And “as a
general rule, when a party fails to object timely to
interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery
efforts, objections thereto are waived.” In re
United States, 864 F.3d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir.
1989). “If the motion to [to compel] is
granted…the court must, after giving an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent 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).
the plaintiff propounded its written discovery requests on
November 2nd, 2016 and is still waiting on
Littrell's responses. To be fair, the parties did agree
to postpone the response deadline until after mediation was
held on December 8th, 2016, but even after taking
this into account, Littrell's responses are overdue by
well over two (2) months. Moreover, the plaintiff's
motion to compel was filed on January 30th, 2017,
but to date, Littrell has not filed a response or provided
any justification for its noncompliance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the court finds that
the plaintiff's motion is well taken and should be
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:
Littrell shall furnish its responses to the plaintiff's
interrogatories and requests for production no later than
April 12th, 2017, and any objections thereto are
plaintiff is instructed to provide the court with a detailed
accounting of the costs it incurred, including attorney's
fees, in filing this compliance motion.