From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardman v. Mainstreet Fin. Grp.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Feb 3, 2022
Civil Action 3:21-CV-00178-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:21-CV-00178-FDW-DSC

02-03-2022

JENNIFER HARDMAN, Plaintiff, v. MAINSTREET FINANCIAL GROUP INC., Defendant.


ORDER

David S. Cayer United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Sanctions” (document #16) and “Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Discovery” (document #20) as well as the parties' briefs and exhibits.

The Court has carefully reviewed the record, the authorities and the parties' arguments. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide complete supplemental responses to her First Set of Interrogatories Numbers 3, 10 and 13 and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. For the reasons stated in her briefs, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to complete responses to these discovery requests.

In its “Response...” Defendant represents that it has made complete responses to all of the discovery requests except for Requests to Produce Number 15 (ESI information) and Numbers 3 and 10 (peer information). Document #19 at 1-2. Defendant represents that it has encountered technical issues in producing ESI information data but is now producing it on a “rolling basis.” Id. at 9-10.

The parties disagree whether Defendant withheld responsive documents based upon a claim of privilege. Defendant has not served a privilege log.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. “Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Sanctions” (document #16) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Numbers 3, 10 and 13 and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are OVERRULED. Within thirty days of this Order, Defendant shall serve complete responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests.

2. If Defendant contends that it has previously produced all responsive documents and other information in its custody and control concerning a specific request, it shall state its compliance in a verified discovery response.

3. The parties shall pay their own costs at this time.

4. “Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Discovery” (document #20) is DENIED AS MOOT.

5. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Frank D. Whitney

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hardman v. Mainstreet Fin. Grp.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Feb 3, 2022
Civil Action 3:21-CV-00178-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Hardman v. Mainstreet Fin. Grp.

Case Details

Full title:JENNIFER HARDMAN, Plaintiff, v. MAINSTREET FINANCIAL GROUP INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

Date published: Feb 3, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 3:21-CV-00178-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2022)