United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
ABBY ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A NEW ENGLAND CONTRACTORS, LLC PLAINTIFF
BRIDGEWATER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., MIKE ROSENTHAL AND JOHN / JANE DOES 1-5 DEFENDANTS
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION TO
KEITH BALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Compel  filed by Defendants
Bridgewater Owners Association, Inc. (“BOA”) and
Mike Rosenthal. The Court finds that the motion should be
contend that Plaintiff has not provided answers to Request
Nos. 9 and 10 of BOA's Second Set of Requests for
Production and Request Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 of BOA's
Second Set of Requests for Admissions. . The Court held a
discovery conference with the parties on August 3, 2017,
during which it authorized Defendants to file a motion to
compel if they did not receive Plaintiff's responses by
August 11, 2017. See Text-Only Order of August 3,
2017. On August 14, 2017, Defendants filed this
their motion, Defendants quote Plaintiff's discovery
responses at issue.  at 2-3. In Request for Production
Nos. 9 and 10, Defendants seek production of any “plans
and specifications approved by Bridgewater” which were
“referenced in the letter of January 24, 2014.”
 at 2. Defendants attached a copy of the letter in
question, both to the original Requests for Production and to
the motion to compel.  at 4, [50-1]. Plaintiff responded
to each Request that she “does not understand the
Request.”  at 2.
their motion, Defendants quote the Requests for Admission at
issue.  at 2-3. Plaintiff responds to Request for
Admission Nos. 2 and 3 by referencing her deposition
testimony. Id. She does not either admit or deny the
Request for Admission. Id. Plaintiff responds to
Request for Admission Nos. 6, 7, and 8 by giving various
answers to the requests as if they were interrogatories, but
does not actually admit or deny the Requests for Admission.
See  at 3.
an attorney, filed a response to the instant motion on her
own behalf. . She does not argue that Defendants'
discovery requests were improper, nor does she explain why
she failed to timely respond to the requests. See
Id. Plaintiff's response is not so much a
substantive response to the motion as it is responses to the
two requests for production of documents and the five
requests for admission at issue. See Id. Plaintiff
does not state whether she also provided these written
responses to Defendants in the manner required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 or 36. Id.
result of Plaintiff's counsel withdrawing against her
wishes on September 11, 2017, the Court permitted Plaintiff
another opportunity to respond to the Motion to Compel. .
Plaintiff's new counsel entered his appearance on
November 2, 2017. . However, on December 10, 2017,
Plaintiff again filed a response to the motion to compel on
her own behalf, rather than through counsel. . As with
her first response to the motion, Plaintiff does not argue in
her second response that Defendants' discovery requests
were improper, nor explain why she failed to timely provide
responses. See . Plaintiff responds to the motion
by providing responses to the discovery requests in her
filing, just as she did in her first response. However, the
responses she provides in document  differ from those
provided in .
request that the Court order Plaintiff to respond to the two
requests for production and the five requests for admission
(1) in the manner required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and (2) by a date certain. .
responses to Request for Production Nos. 9 and 10, that she
did “not understand [the] Request[s]” are
insufficient and not supported by the straightforward, easily
comprehendible nature of each request. In fact, Plaintiff
demonstrates that she understands the requests, as she
provided answers to the requests in her two responses to the
motion. See  at 1-2;  at 2-3.
Plaintiff's responses to Request for Admission Nos. 2, 3,
6, 7, and 8 are also insufficient, as they fail to conform
with Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4). Accordingly, Defendants'
motion  should be, and is hereby, granted.
1. No later than March 30, 2018, Plaintiff must serve written
responses to Request for Production Nos. 9 and 10 in the
manner required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) and 34(b)(2)(B);
2. No later than March 30, 2018, Plaintiff must serve written
responses to Request for Admission Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in
the manner required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) and 36(a)(4).