Rice ex rel. CIR v. Cornerstone Hosp. of W. Monroe

Full title: TOMMIE RICE AND PHYLLIS RICE ON BEHALF OF THE MINORS, CIR AND GMR v…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 17, 2015

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0362 (W.D. La. Aug. 17, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0362

08-17-2015

TOMMIE RICE AND PHYLLIS RICE ON BEHALF OF THE MINORS, CIR AND GMR v. CORNERSTONE HOSPITAL OF WEST MONROE

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the undersigned magistrate judge, on reference from the District Court, is a motion to compel discovery responses [doc. # 70] filed by defendant, Cornerstone Hospital of West Monroe, L.L.C. (improperly sued as "Cornerstone Hospital of West Monroe") (hereinafter, "Cornerstone").¹

1 As this is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R. 74.1(W).

On November 13, 2013, Cornerstone served the minors, CIR and GMR (through their Next Friend Tommie Rice) with Interrogatories and Requests for Production. (M/Compel, Exhs. 14-15). Despite several reminders from defense counsel, plaintiff(s) failed to respond to the discovery. Id., Exh. 18. Accordingly, on July 22, 2015, Cornerstone filed the instant motion to compel. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and the time to do so has lapsed. (Notice of Motion Setting [doc. # 72]). Therefore, the motion is unopposed. Id.

Upon consideration of the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to compel discovery [doc. # 70] is hereby GRANTED. Within the next seven (7) days from the date of this order, plaintiff Tommie Rice, as Next Friend of CIR and GMR, shall respond fully and completely to defendant's interrogatories and requests for production.²

2 By failing to timely respond to the discovery, and in the absence of good cause shown, Defendant has waived its right to object to the discovery requests. See In Re U.S., 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5^th Cir. 1989). --------

In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 17th day of August 2015.

/s/_________

KAREN L. HAYES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE