UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

OMAR ALOMARI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00613 

 v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER

 

 Plaintiff, Omar Alomari, brings this employment discrimination action against 

Defendants Ohio Department of Public Safety (“ODPS”), Thomas Stickrath, and William J. 

Vedra (jointly “Defendants”), asserting claims of national origin, religion and race 

discrimination arising under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., a claim of retaliation under 42 

U.S.C. § 1981, and claims of Equal Protection violations and First Amendment retaliation under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. ¶¶ 41-79, ECF No. 2.) This matter is before the Court for 

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 44), Defendants’ 

Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 49),1

 and Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 50). For the reasons 

that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

 

1

 Defendants’ Memorandum was untimely. Although the Court had warned the parties no fewer than five times that 

no further extensions would be granted, Defendants’ counsel had the audacity to file a Motion for Extension of Time 

on the day the document was due and failed to demonstrate good cause. The Court will not countenance such 

defiant conduct. Indeed, when a party fails obey a scheduling or pretrial order, the Court has the inherent authority 

to strike the pleadings in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(c) and 37(b)(2). Defendants submitted their

Memorandum in Opposition one day after it was due. Nevertheless, to prevent an injustice to the clients for their 

counsel’s apparent disrespect for this Court’s authority, the Court will consider Defendants’ untimely Memorandum 

in Opposition. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 2

I. 

The Court incorporates by reference the factual background set forth in its August 21, 

2013 Opinion and Order. (ECF No. 35.) 

The discovery phase of this case has been delayed and protracted. On May 7, 2012, 

Plaintiff emailed his first set of discovery requests to Defendants. Soon after, Defendants 

requested their first two-week extension, which Plaintiff permitted. Defendants subsequently 

requested an additional two-week extension, which Plaintiff again permitted. Following the 

second extension, and despite Plaintiff’s repeated demands, Defendants failed to provide their 

responses to the written discovery or produce any documents. Defendants’ delay prompted the 

parties to seek an extension of the discovery deadline. On August 22, 2012, the Court granted 

the requested extension, extending the discovery deadline for an additional three months. (ECF 

No. 13.) Over the next several months, Plaintiff continued to press Defendants to respond to the 

outstanding discovery. On November 18, 2012, the parties sought a second extension of the 

discovery deadline. (ECF No. 18.) The Court again granted the requested extension, extending 

the discovery deadline to April 30, 2013. (ECF No. 19.) 

On November 19, 2012, Defendants produced some documents, but did not provide their 

written responses until January 8, 2013. Plaintiff asserts that the documents Defendants 

produced in November 2012 were incomplete and were not classified or indexed such that he 

could ascertain which documents were responsive to which requests. In their written responses, 

Defendants objected to several of Plaintiff’s discovery requests on the basis of privilege, but 

failed to provide a privilege log. Defendants also failed to produce documents responsive to 

some of the requests, asserting that no such documents existed. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 3

Thereafter, Plaintiff learned of information contradicting Defendants’ representations that 

certain categories of requested documents did not exist. Specifically, in their January 2013 

written responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production, Defendants indicated that no public 

records requests regarding Plaintiff, his position, or his office within Ohio Homeland Security 

exist. (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s First Req.for Prod. of Docs., ECF No. 44-19.) Plaintiff learned, 

however, that the Columbus Dispatch had made a public records request. This information 

prompted Plaintiff to propound supplemental requests directing Defendants to outline the 

methods they used to search for responsive documents. To date, Defendants have refused to 

provide a response to Plaintiff’s supplemental requests. 

On April 11, 2013, due to Defendants’ continued non-responsiveness and the 

approaching discovery deadline, Plaintiff sought Court intervention. (ECF No. 23.) On April 

17, 2013, the Court held a Status Conference with the parties to discuss discovery issues and the 

then-pending motion seeking extension of the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 24.) In order to 

facilitate the review process, the Court directed Defendants to cooperate with Plaintiff to classify 

and index the documents that Defendants had produced or intended to produce. (ECF No. 25.) 

Defendants subsequently provided a general outline of the groups of documents that were 

produced, but indicated that the emails were not in chronological order and that the attachments 

did not match up with the emails. (Defs.’ May 13, 2013 Corres., ECF No. 44-17.) 

On September 10, 2013, Defendants requested yet another extension of the discovery 

deadline. The Court granted the extension, extending the deadline until October 4, 2013. (ECF 

No. 40.) Despite Defendants’ repeated assurances that they would produce adequate 

supplemental documents by September 30, 2013, they failed to produce any such documents. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 4

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed the subject Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 

44.) He seeks an Order compelling Defendants to produce a privilege log and to fully respond to 

his outstanding requests for production of documents. Specifically, Plaintiff sets forth twentyfive (25) requests for production of documents to which he asserts Defendants have not fully 

responded. Plaintiff notes that Defendants provided supplemental responses after he filed his 

Motion to Compel, but asserts that those responses are once again not indexed and appear to be 

incomplete. In the event Defendants maintain that no responsive documents exist, Plaintiff asks 

the Court to order Defendants to identify the search methods they utilized to locate documents. 

Plaintiff further seeks an award of attorneys’ fees for the costs associated with his efforts to 

obtain the requested discovery. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to reopen 

depositions upon receipt of the documents at issue and to award him attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in connection with reopening the depositions. 

 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 49.) Defendants posit that they have 

already produced over 10,000 documents and are presently working towards producing an 

additional set of documents in response to Plaintiff’s requests and supplemental requests. 

Although Defendants generally assert in a conclusory manner that Plaintiff’s requests lack 

relevance or are overbroad, they do not specifically argue that any of the twenty-five at-issue 

requests for production are irrelevant or overbroad. Rather, Defendants assert that responsive 

documents either do not exist or that any responsive documents will be (or have been) produced. 

Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s request for a privilege log. 

 In his Reply, Plaintiff continues to express his incredulity over Defendants’ 

representations that no responsive documents exist with regard to certain requests. In support, 

Plaintiff references the instance in which he discovered that Defendants had misrepresented that 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 5

documents reflecting public records requests did not exist, when in fact such responsive 

documents were available. Plaintiff also acknowledges receiving some supplemental 

documentation, but emphasizes that Defendants’ belated supplemental production is in no way 

complete. 

II. 

Plaintiff has moved the Court for an order compelling Defendants to respond to his 

discovery requests. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits a party to file a motion for an 

order compelling discovery if another party fails to respond to discovery requests, provided that 

the motion to compel includes a certification that the movant has, in good faith, conferred or 

attempted to confer with the party failing to respond to the requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 

The Court is satisfied that this prerequisite to a motion to compel has been met in this case. 

 Rule 37 also contemplates a motion to compel discovery responses where a party fails to 

answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 or fails to produce documents as requested 

pursuant to Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv). Rule 37 (a)(4) further provides 

that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to 

disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The burden of proof rests with the party 

objecting to the motion to compel to show in what respects the discovery requests are improper. 

Kafele v. Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathborne, No. 2:03-CV-638, 2005 WL 5095186, at *1 (S.D. 

Ohio April 20, 2005) (citation omitted). 

III. 

As set forth above, Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendants to provide a privilege 

log and to fully respond to twenty-five requests for production of documents. The Court 

considers the parties’ arguments on Plaintiff’s respective requests in turn. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 6

A. Privilege Log 

 Plaintiff indicates that although Defendants have objected to his discovery requests on the 

basis of privilege, they have failed to provide a privilege log to enable him to assess their claims 

of privilege. As set forth above, Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiff’s arguments 

regarding his request for a privilege log. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(a)provides that : 

When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that 

the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation 

material, the party must: 

(i) expressly make the claim; and 

(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible 

things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without 

revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other 

parties to assess the claim.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(a). 

 Defendants are required under Rule 26 to produce a privilege log given their refusal to 

produce certain documents on the basis of privilege. Defendants are therefore ORDERED to 

produce a privilege log that complies with Rule 26(b)(5) WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 

OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. See also Cooey v. Strickland, 269 F.R.D. 643, 649 (S.D. 

Ohio 2010) (setting forth the details courts require within privilege logs). 

B. Outstanding Requests for Production 

 As set forth above, Defendants assert that in addition to the responsive documents they 

have already produced, they are in the process of producing additional responsive documents. 

Defendants also assert that with regard to a number of Plaintiff’s requests, no additional 

responsive documents exist. Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants produced some 

supplemental documents after he filed his Motion to Compel, but asserts that these supplemental 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 7

productions were incomplete and included documents that were non-responsive to his requests. 

Thus, at this juncture, the Court is unable to determine which specific document requests 

Plaintiff contends remain outstanding following Defendants’ latest supplemental production. 

The Court therefore DIRECTS Plaintiff to provide Defendants with a list of specific document 

requests that Plaintiff believes have not been addressed or have been insufficiently addressed 

WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. In addition, if Plaintiff 

concludes that Defendants’ response to a particular request is incomplete, he must identify any of 

the perceived inadequacies. Defendants are ORDERED to respond fully to those requests and 

to classify and index the documents in such a way as to facilitate the review process WITHIN 

SEVEN (7) DAYS after receipt of the aforementioned list from Plaintiff. 

In the event that Defendants maintain that no further responsive documents exist, 

Defendants and/or Defense counsel are DIRECTED to set forth, in affidavits, the steps they 

took to locate and produce responsive documents. Defense counsel must execute an affidavit 

certifying that Defendants have completed a reasonable inquiry in locating and producing 

responsive documents and that all responsive documents of which they are aware have been 

produced. The affidavits must confirm that their efforts in locating responsive documents are 

complete. The Court concludes that full disclosure of Defendants’ and Defense counsel’s search 

efforts is necessary here for a number of reasons. First, Defendants have demonstrated a pattern 

of inexcusable delay and non-responsiveness throughout the discovery phase of this case. 

Plaintiff served his first set of requests for production of documents on Defendants on May 7, 

2012. Yet, nearly a year and a half later in their October 16, 2013 Memorandum in Opposition, 

Defendants represent that they are still in the process of producing responsive documents. 

Defendants’ delay has also prompted the parties to seek three extensions of the discovery 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 8

deadlines, notwithstanding this Court’s admonition that no further extensions would be granted. 

(See ECF Nos. 12, 18, 19 and 22.) Review of the twenty-five requests at issue reveals that 

Defendants’ delays were not warranted. The at-issue requests are reasonable and not unduly 

burdensome. Second, with regard to one of the requests at issue, Plaintiff has provided evidence 

refuting Defendants’ representation that no responsive documents exist. Finally, Defendants 

failed to comply with the Court’s directive to index the documents to facilitate the review 

process. (See ECF No. 25.) 

 Of course, Defendants have no obligation to create documents that do not exist. Further, 

in the event Defendants indicate that, after a reasonable inquiry, particular types of documents 

Plaintiff seeks do not exist, the Court will accept Defendants’ efforts as complete. Put another 

way, Plaintiff’s speculation that additional documents must exist will be insufficient to compel 

judicial involvement unless he offers evidence that Defendants are improperly withholding 

documents. 

C. Reopen Depositions 

 Plaintiff’s request to reopen depositions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing 

a renewed motion upon receipt of Defendants’ privilege log and their responses to Plaintiff’s 

outstanding discovery. In the event Plaintiff determines that it is necessary to redepose certain 

witnesses, his renewed motion must specify which depositions he seeks to reopen, the purpose of 

reopening each deposition, and a proposed timeline in which to complete the depositions. The 

Court will then consider the extent to which depositions can be reopened. 

D. Sanctions Under Rule 37 

 Plaintiff asks this Court for an award of his attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in 

attempting to resolve these ongoing discovery disputes and in bringing the instant Motion. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 9

Plaintiff asserts that he filed the instant Motion as a last resort, after numerous telephone 

conferences and exchanges of correspondence. Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request for 

attorneys’ fees, emphasizing that they produced the documents first in November 2012 and 

supplemented their production in October 2013, after Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel. 

 Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides as follows: 

If the Motion Is Granted (or Disclosure or Discovery Is Provided After Filing). If 

the motion is granted—or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided 

after the motion was filed—the court must, after giving an opportunity to be 

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the 

party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable 

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court 

must not order this payment if: 

 (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the 

disclosure or discovery without court action; 

 (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was 

substantially justified; or 

 (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 

 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 

 The Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). 

Despite Court intervention and numerous telephone conferences and exchanges of 

correspondence between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ counsel and the twenty intervening months 

since service of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Defendants’ production remains deficient. 

Defendants have also failed to index and classify the produced documents in a way that would 

facilitate the review process, despite the Court’s directive to do so. Under these circumstances, 

the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 

Rule 37. The Court limits the fee award, however, to fees incurred in connection with filing the 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 10

instant Motion, review of Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition, and preparation of his Reply 

to Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition. 

 The Court encourages the parties to reach an agreement concerning the appropriate 

amount of fees to be awarded. In the event the parties cannot reach such an agreement, Plaintiff 

shall file a supplemental memorandum in support of its requested attorneys’ fees and expenses, 

setting forth information that would permit the Court to assess the reasonableness of the fees 

requested, including the timekeeper, rate, and explanation of work, to the extent counsel may do 

so without violating the attorney-client privilege WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THE 

DATE OF THIS ORDER. 

 IV. 

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART. (ECF No. 44.) With respect to documents already provided, 

Defendants are DIRECTED to provide a privilege log to the extent that they are withholding 

responsive documents on the basis of privilege WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THE 

DATE OF THIS ORDER. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide a list of specific document 

requests that he contends remain incomplete WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE DATE OF 

THIS ORDER. Defendants are ORDERED to respond fully to Plaintiff’s requests and to 

classify and index the documents in such a way as to facilitate the review process WITHIN 

SEVEN (7) DAYS after receipt of the aforementioned list from Plaintiff. In connection with this 

production, Defendants are DIRECTED to provide a privilege log to the extent that they are 

withholding responsive documents on the basis of privilege. Further, Defendants are 

DIRECTED to set forth in affidavits the search methods they used to locate responsive 

documents as outlined in this Order to the extent that they maintain no further responsive 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 11

documents exist. Plaintiff’s request to reopen depositions is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to filing a renewed motion upon receipt of Defendants’ privilege log and 

responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests. Finally, Defendants’ counsel is 

ORDERED to pay Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses associated with bringing 

this Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: October 30, 2013 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case: 2:11-cv-00613-ALM-EPD Doc #: 78 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>