United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
KEITH BALL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
case is before the Court on three motions filed by the
plaintiff, Roosevelt Harris: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Disclosures and Discovery Responses and for Attorney's
Fees , Motion to Amend the Complaint , and Motion to
Amend the Scheduling Order . The Court finds as follows.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (“Murphy Oil”) removed this
case on January 25, 2018. Harris alleges that on or about
September 7, 2014, he slipped and fell at a store owned by
Murphy Oil in Vicksburg, Mississippi. [1-1]. He contends that
the fall was the result of Murphy Oil's negligence.
Harris's Motion to Compel
February 28, 2019, the Court held a telephonic discovery
conference, pursuant to Section 6.F.4. of the Case Management
Order , at Harris's request. Harris contended that
several of Murphy Oil's April 30, 2018, discovery
responses were inadequate. The undersigned authorized Harris
to file a motion to compel if the parties were unable to work
out the disagreements, and on April 10, 2019, Harris did so.
The Court notes, however, that the Motion to Compel 
included several disputes that had not been discussed at the
February 28, 2019, conference.
Memorandum  in support of his Motion to Compel is
thirty-three pages long and the parties have since resolved
many of disagreements at issue. For the sake of brevity, the
Court will only address those issues that remain unresolved.
The timeliness of Murphy Oil's discovery
contends that Murphy Oil has waived all objections to his
discovery requests because it waited until April 30, 2018, to
respond to discovery that was due on April 16, 2018.  at
16-18. Generally, discovery objections are waived if they are
not timely. See Godsey v. United States, 133 F.R.D.
111, 113 (S.D.Miss. 1990). And Murphy Oil's discovery
responses and objections were fourteen days late. However,
considering the following circumstances, good cause exists to
find that Murphy Oil's discovery objections have not been
Harris waited almost a year to raise this issue. Harris did
not request the discovery conference necessary to file this
motion until February 26, 2019, and he did not file the
actual motion until April 10, 2019. Second, Harris was far
more dilatory in responding to Murphy Oil's discovery
than Murphy Oil was his. Murphy Oil propounded
interrogatories and requests for production to Harris on
April 25, 2018.  and . Harris failed to respond by the
due date of May 25, 2018. On July 3, 2018, Harris's
attorney moved to withdraw, and the Court learned that the
plaintiff was incarcerated.  and . The Court granted
the attorney's withdrawal and set a deadline of October
17, 2018, for Harris to serve his discovery responses. .
Despite this nearly four-month extension, Harris still failed
to timely respond. In fact, without leave or request for an
extension, Harris did not respond to Murphy Oil's
discovery requests until February 4, 2019.  and . It
would be inequitable for the Court to punish Murphy Oil for
responses that were fourteen days late under these
circumstances. The Court finds that Murphy Oil's
objections as contained in its April 30, 2018, discovery
responses are not waived.
Murphy Oil's Fed. Rule Civ P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i)
Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires that a party disclose
“the name and, if known, the address and telephone
number of each individual likely to have discoverable
information--along with the subjects of that
information--that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment . . . .”
Oil made the following Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) disclosures to
Harris on March 27, 2018:
The individuals of which Murphy is presently aware who are
likely to have discoverable information that Murphy may use
to support its claims or defenses herein (unless solely for
impeachment), together with the subjects of that information,
are as follows:
1. Any current or former Murphy employees who may have
information regarding the circumstances of the alleged
accident at issue in this matter.
2. Any and all health care providers required to dispute
causation and/or the extent and/or duration of
Plaintiff's alleged personal injuries, including any
medical providers that may conduct an independent medical
examination of Plaintiff.
3. Any and all experts retained by Defendant.
4. All persons identified in Plaintiff's Initial
5. Any and all eyewitnesses that may be identified in
6. Any and all witnesses necessary to respond to any and all
claims and allegations asserted by Plaintiff in this
 at 4.
Oil's disclosures are insufficient and do not meet the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). The disclosures
do not list any individual's name, nor do they
meaningfully describe the subjects of any individual's
to Harris, Murphy Oil has supplemented its initial
disclosures, and the parties have resolved the disagreements,
except for the healthcare providers described in Category 2.
Accordingly, the Court sets a deadline of July 3, 2019, for
Murphy Oil to supplement Category 2 of its initial
disclosures to provide the information required by
Murphy Oil's Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv)
disclosures and responses to Interrogatory No. 6 and ...