UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS UNION ) 

NO. 142 PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE ) 

TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 142 ) 

TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIP TRUST ) 

FUND, and TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS ) 

UNION LOCAL NO. 142 ANNUITY FUND ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-479 

 ) 

IND CONSTRUCTION SERVICE, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Discovery to Defendant IND 

Construction Service, Inc. [DE 16] filed by the plaintiffs, Trustees of the Teamsters Union No. 

142 Pension Fund, on December 23, 2014. For the following reasons, the motion is 

GRANTED. 

Background 

 The plaintiffs initiated this matter on December 18, 2013. On May 12, 2014, the 

plaintiffs served their First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories 

on the defendant, IND Construction Service, Inc. IND has failed to respond timely to the 

Request for Production of Documents or the Set of Interrogatories. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1, the plaintiffs filed a certification indicating that they 

attempted to resolve this discovery dispute with IND before requesting court intervention. The 

plaintiffs demonstrated that they have attempted to resolve multiple issues with IND. 

Specifically, to resolve the present dispute, the plaintiffs contacted IND via email on June 16, 
2 

2014, September 17, 2014, and October 21, 2014, via letter on October 7, 2014 and October 21, 

2014, and via telephone on October 22, 2014, October 27, 2014, and December 9, 2014. 

Although IND allegedly indicated it would provide discovery responses within a week on 

December 9, 2014, the plaintiffs have not received a discovery response. IND did not respond or 

object to the present Motion to Compel. 

Discussion 

 A party may “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the 

claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and 

location of any books, documents, or other tangible things.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(1). For discovery purposes, relevancy is construed broadly to encompass “any matter that 

bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or 

may be in the case.” Chavez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind. 2002) 

(quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 2389, 57 L. 

Ed. 2d 253 (1978)). Even when information is not directly related to the claims or defenses 

identified in the pleadings, the information still may be relevant to the broader subject matter at 

hand and meet the rule’s good cause standard. Borom v. Town of Merrillville, 2009 WL 

1617085, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June 8, 2009) (citing Sanyo Laser Prods., Inc. v. Arista Records, Inc., 

214 F.R.D. 496, 502 (S.D. Ind. 2003)); see Adams v. Target, 2001 WL 987853, at *1 (S.D. Ind. 

July 30, 2001) (“For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the 

subject matter involved in the action.”); Shapo v. Engle, 2001 WL 629303, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 

25, 2001) (“Discovery is a search for the truth.”). 

 A party may seek an order to compel discovery when an opposing party fails to respond 

to discovery requests or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Federal Rule of Civil 
3 

Procedure 37(a)(2)–(3). The burden “rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular 

discovery request is improper.” Gregg v. Local 305 Ibew, 2009 WL 1325103, at *8 (N.D. Ind. 

May 13, 2009) (citing Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 449–50 

(N.D. Ill. 2006)); McGrath v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1325405, at *3 (N.D. Ind. May 

13, 2009) (internal citations omitted); Carlson Rests. Worldwide, Inc. v. Hammond Prof’l 

Cleaning Servs., 2009 WL 692224, at *5 (N.D. Ind. March 12, 2009) (internal citations omitted). 

The objecting party must show with specificity that the request is improper. Cunningham v. 

Smithkline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474, 478 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (citing Graham v. Casey’s Gen. 

Stores, 206 F.R.D. 253, 254 (S.D. Ind. 2002)). That burden cannot be met by “a reflexive 

invocation of the same baseless, often abused litany that the requested discovery is vague, 

ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome or that it is neither relevant nor reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Cunningham, 255 F.R.D. at 478 

(citing Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 2006 WL 2325506, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2006)) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Rather, the court, under its broad discretion, 

considers “the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of material sought against the 

burden of providing it, and taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truth-seeking 

function in the particular case before the court.” Berning v. UAW Local 2209, 242 F.R.D. 510, 

512 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (examining Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th 

Cir. 2002)) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see Hunt v. DaVita, Inc., 680 F.3d 775, 

780 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the district court has broad discretion in supervising 

discovery). 

 IND did not respond or object to the present Motion to Compel. Therefore, it did not 

meet its burden to demonstrate that the requested discovery is improper. The court finds that the 
4 

requested information is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims and that the plaintiffs attempted in good 

faith to resolve this discovery dispute before requesting court intervention pursuant to Local Rule 

37.1. 

 Based on the foregoing reasons, the First Motion to Compel Discovery to Defendant IND 

Construction Service, Inc. [DE 16] is GRANTED. IND is ORDERED to provide full and 

complete responses to the First Request for Production of Documents and the First Set of 

Interrogatories within fourteen days of this order. 

 ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2015. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge