Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00005/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANNIE ODOM AND JAMES ODOM, *

 *

Plaintiffs, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action No.

 * 05-00005-BH-B

JEREMY WHITE AND * 

JEFFREY WHITE, *

 *

Defendants. *

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to

Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. 22). In their motion,

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs were served with Defendants’

First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for the

Production of Documents on May 17, 2005, and that Plaintiffs

have failed to provide responses despite requests from

Defendants’ counsel. In an Order dated August 3, 2005 (Doc.

24), the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response to

Defendants’ motion by August 11, 2005. To date, Plaintiffs

have filed no response, and have not sought an extension of

time in which to do so.

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that the Court may compel disclosure and may enter sanctions

against individuals who fail to make disclosures or participate

in discovery. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: 

Case 1:05-cv-00005-BH-B Document 27 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 2
If the motion [to compel] is granted or if the

disclosure or requested discovery is provided after

the motion was filed, the court shall, after

affording an opportunity to be heard, require the

party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the

motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct

or both of them to pay to the moving party the

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,

including attorney's fees, unless the court finds

that the motion was filed without the movant's first

making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure

or discovery without court action, or that the

opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or

objection was substantially justified, or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). In the case sub judice,

Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendants’ motion, let

alone offer any evidence to controvert the assertions contained

in Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, based upon the undisputed

assertions contained in Defendants’ motion, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion, and DIRECTS Plaintiffs to fully respond to

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for

the Production of Documents by September 23, 2005. 

Additionally, Plaintiffs and their counsel are ORDERED to show

cause, on or before September 23, 2005, why this Court should

not impose sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(4)(A).

DONE this 13th day of September, 2005.

S/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00005-BH-B Document 27 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2