Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-3745-TCB
08-22-2023
ORDER
Timothy C. Batten, Sr. Chief United States District Judge
On May 19, 2023, Defendants Adecco Staffing and Hello Fresh served Plaintiff Caroline Danette Grant with interrogatories and a request for the production of documents. [26, 27]. Plaintiff did not respond to these discovery requests, despite the Defendant extending the deadline by an additional week. On August 1, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why she has not responded to discovery requests. [30]. Plaintiff argued that she is not required to comply with discovery requests sent by the Defendants because it is her understanding that only the Court may contact her.
Plaintiff's argument fails as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes parties to serve discovery requests upon other parties. See generally Rule 26(b). Specifically, Rule 33(a)(1) provides that “a party may serve on any other party . . . written interrogatories.” And Rule 34(a)(1)(A) similarly provides that “a party may serve on any other party a request . . . to produce . . . any designated documents.” Importantly, both rules require the opposing party to respond to discovery requests.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(1)(A) (“The interrogatories must be answered . . . by the party to whom they are directed.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (“The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing . . .”)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to provide sworn answers to the Defendant's interrogatories and to produce the requested documents within twenty-one days of the entry date of this Order. Plaintiff must also timely comply with future discovery requests from Defendants, such as cooperating with efforts to schedule a deposition. Failure to timely comply with discovery requests will result in sanctions, potentially including dismissal of this case for failure to comply with a court order, LR 41.3(A)(2), or the imposition of attorney's fees, Rule 37(b)(2)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED