Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:19-cv-00418-HAB-SLC
04-21-2020
ROBERT MOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLENN WILSON, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel filed on February 27, 2020, seeking to compel Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' outstanding written discovery requests served on November 26, 2019. (ECF 11). Defendants have not filed a response to the motion, and their time to do so has now expired. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(3)(A). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to compel will be GRANTED.
A. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed this state-law negligence suit against Defendants in Jay County Superior Court on August 23, 2019, and Defendants subsequently removed it here on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF 1, 3). On November 13, 2019, this Court conducted a scheduling conference, setting a discovery deadline of June 15, 2020. (ECF 10). On November 26, 2019, Plaintiffs served their Interrogatories and Request for Production on Defendants. (ECF 11 ¶ 1; ECF 11-1).
After Defendants failed to timely respond to the discovery requests, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted defense counsel via email on January 14 and January 23, 2020, inquiring as to the status of Defendants' response. (ECF 11 ¶ 2; ECF 11-2). On January 23, 2020, defense counsel advised that Defendants would respond and produce the outstanding discovery responses by January 31, 2020. (ECF 11 ¶ 3; ECF 11-3). Defendants, however, failed to respond and produce the outstanding the discovery responses by that date. (ECF 11 ¶ 4). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted defense counsel by email again on February 5 and February 10, 2020, but Defendants still failed to produce the discovery responses. (ECF 11 ¶¶ 2, 4; ECF 11-2). Thus, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on February 27, 2020.
After filing this motion, Plaintiffs' counsel again reached out to defense counsel on March 30 and April 3, 2020, but was still unable to resolve the discovery dispute. (ECF 14 ¶¶ 2, 3). As stated above, Defendants have not responded to the motion to compel, and their time to do so has now passed.
B. Applicable Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party is permitted to file a motion to compel discovery where another party fails to respond to interrogatories or requests for production of documents. See Redmond v. Leatherwood, No. 06-C-1242, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009). Together with the motion to compel, a party must file "a separate certification that the party has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with the other affected parties in an effort to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court action." N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). "A motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court." Redmond, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (citation omitted).
C. Discussion
Plaintiffs have adequately attempted to confer in good faith with Defendants in an effort to resolve this matter without Court action. (ECF 11 ¶ 2; ECF 11-2; ECF 14); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a). Defendants, however, appear to have simply ignored Plaintiffs' outstanding discovery requests, Plaintiffs' counsel's attempt at consultations, and this motion to compel. Consequently, the Court will GRANT the motion to compel (ECF 11) and order Defendants to answer Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and respond to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (ECF 11-1) on or before May 5, 2020. See, e.g., Redmond, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (granting plaintiff's motion to compel where defendants appeared to have "entirely ignored the plaintiff's discovery requests").
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to compel (ECF 11) is GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to answer Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and respond to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (ECF 11-1) on or before May 5, 2020.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 21st day of April 2020.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge