From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seifert v. Kansas City Kansas Community College

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Jul 30, 2009
Case No. 08-2427-EFM (D. Kan. Jul. 30, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 08-2427-EFM.

July 30, 2009


ORDER


This case comes before the court on the motion of the defendant, Kansas City Kansas Community College, to compel the plaintiff, Max Seifert, to answer deposition questions and interrogatories (doc. 31). For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion is denied.

First, the motion to compel is untimely. As the court specifically noted in the Scheduling Order, D. Kan. Rule 37.1(b) requires that motions to compel discovery be filed within thirty days of the objection that is the subject of the motion unless the thirty-day deadline is extended for good cause shown. Defendant's motion to compel challenges plaintiff's interrogatory objections that were served on May 21, 2009, and plaintiff's answers at a deposition that was held on June 5, 2009. Defendant filed the motion on July 23, 2009 — clearly past the thirty-day deadline. Defendant does not even attempt to show good cause for an extension of the deadline.

Doc. 6 at 3.e ("Any motion to compel discovery in compliance with D. Kan. Rules 7.1 and 37.2 shall be filed and served within 30 days of the default or service of the response, answer, or objection which is the subject of the motion, unless the time for filing such a motion is extended for good cause shown. Otherwise, the objection to the default, response, answer, or objection shall be waived. See D. Kan. Rule 37.1(b).")

Second, even if the motion to compel were timely, it is substantively inadequate. Defendant has provided no persuasive argument as to why the objections to interrogatories and deposition questions were improper.

In its reply brief, defendant suggests that it need not submit an argument on the improper nature of plaintiff's interrogatory objections because the burden of proof was on plaintiff to substantiate the objections. However, where an interrogatory does not, on its face, appear to seek relevant information, the burden is on the requester to show relevancy before a motion to compel will be granted. Delkhah v. Moore, No. 04-2543, 2006 WL 681119, at *2 (D. Kan. March 14, 2006).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Seifert v. Kansas City Kansas Community College

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Jul 30, 2009
Case No. 08-2427-EFM (D. Kan. Jul. 30, 2009)
Case details for

Seifert v. Kansas City Kansas Community College

Case Details

Full title:MAX SEIFERT, Plaintiff, v. KANSAS CITY KANSAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Jul 30, 2009

Citations

Case No. 08-2427-EFM (D. Kan. Jul. 30, 2009)