Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00793/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00793-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 23:134 P.I.- Auto Negligence

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALICE SHEWMAKE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05CV793-MEF

) [WO]

EXHIBIT TRANSPORT, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Previously, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel interrogatory responses and

production of documents from defendant Travel Centers of America (Doc. # 30). The court

entered an order on 10 August 2006 denying the motion because of the plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the court’s General Order, but noting that “[t]he plaintiff has received neither

answers nor objections to its now-two-month-old discovery requests”. The court made

further reference to “the defendant’s non-compliance”. Clearly, the motion was denied

solely on the basis of the plaintiff’s non-compliance.

One month later, i.e., on 19 September 2006, the plaintiff filed yet another Motion to

Compel (Doc. # 32). Notwithstanding the court’s observations in its previous order, and

notwithstanding four additional weeks during which the defendant could have cured its

deficiency, the defendant still has not served the discovery responses upon plaintiff’s

counsel. Having been served with the plaintiff’s discovery requests on or about 30 May

2006, the defendant’s responses are now more than 75 days overdue. 

Case 2:05-cv-00793-MEF-WC Document 33 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 3
The rules of procedure require that (1) responses to interrogatories be provided “separately and fully in writing

1

under oath” unless there is an objection. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 33(b)(1); (2) answers to interrogatories be “signed by the

person making them”. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 33(b)(2); (3) responses to interrogatories or objections be served “within 30

days after the serve of the interrogatories”. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 33(b)(3); (4) objections that are untimely are “waived

unless the party’s failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown”. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 33(b)(4); and (5)

responses to a request for production or objections thereto be served in writing “within 30 days after the service of the

request”. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 34(b).

Implicitly, the court finds that the plaintiff has now complied with the court’s General Order. Attached to the 2

motion as Exhibit A was an affidavit of Christopher J. Zulanas, Esq., plaintiff’s counsel, attesting to his efforts to secure

the defendant’s responses.

Notably, the defendant has not requested an extension of time from this court, even

after the August order.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set out explicit time limits

for responses to discovery requests. Those are the dates by

which a lawyer should answer; he should not await a court

order. If a lawyer cannot answer on time, he should move for an

extension of time in which to answer, and inform opposing

counsel so that in the meantime no motion to compel a response

will be filed.

Guidelines on Civil Discovery, Section I-G. Thus, the defendant’s time has expired and any

objections it may have wished to assert are not waived.1

CONCLUSION

Accordingly it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion to compel is GRANTED.2

2. On or about 29 September 2006, TRAVEL CENTERS OF AMERICA shall

serve upon the plaintiff’s counsel full and complete responses to the plaintiff’s

interrogatories and requests for production, , free of objections and signed by

the person answering them.

Case 2:05-cv-00793-MEF-WC Document 33 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 3
3. On or before 3 October 2006, counsel for the plaintiff shall file a Notice of

Compliance with the Clerk of the court, attesting to the defendant’s

compliance or non-compliance with this order.

4. The parties are reminded of the admonition in the Guidelines to Civil

Discovery: 

Because lawyers are expected to respond when

the rules provide, Rule 37(a)(4) provides that if an

opposing lawyer must go to court to make the

recalcitrant party answer, the moving lawyer is

ordinarily awarded counsel fees spent in filing

(and, if necessary, arguing) the motion to compel.

Rule 37 will be enforced in this district strictly

according to its tenor. 

Once a court order is obtained compelling

discovery, unexcused failure to provide a timely

response is treated by the Court with the special

gravity which it deserves; violation of a court

order is always serious and may be treated as

contempt, or judgment may be entered, or some

other appropriate and measured sanction used.

(Section I-G).

5. On or before 3 October 2006, the defendant shall show cause in writing why

the court should not impose sanctions upon it, including the expenses incurred

by the plaintiff in securing the responses and a reasonable attorney fee.

DONE this 21 day of September, 2006. st

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00793-MEF-WC Document 33 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 3