UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DEANNA MYERS-LEDESMA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:16-cv-00298-TLS-SLC

)

ADAMS CENTRAL COMMUNITY )

SCHOOLS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a motion to compel filed on August 23, 2017, by Defendants Adams

Central Community Schools Board of Trustees (“ACCS”), Dr. Lori Stiglitz, and Jason

Witzigreuter (together, “Defendants”), seeking to compel Plaintiff Deanna Myers-Ledesma to

respond to: (1) Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 2-11); Stiglitz’s

First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 12-24); and ACCS’s First Set of

Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 25-38). Myers-Ledesma has not filed a response to the

motion, and the time to do so has now passed. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(A). For the following

reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel will be GRANTED. 

A. Procedural Background

On July 11, 2016, Myers-Ledesma filed this suit in Adams County Superior Court against

ACCS, her former employer; Stiglitz, ACCS’s superintendent; and Witzigreuter, a principal at

one of ACCS’s schools, advancing claims of retaliatory discharge, age discrimination, disability

discrimination, deprivation of due process, conversion, unpaid wages, and breach of contract. 

(DE 4). Defendants timely removed the case to this Court. (DE 1). 

This Court conducted a scheduling conference on November 8, 2016, setting a discovery
deadline of November 1, 2017, which was later extended to December 1, 2017, for discovery

pertaining to liability, and February 1, 2018, for discovery pertaining to experts and damages. 

(DE 12; DE 15). On February 27, 2017, Defendants served their First Request for Production to

Plaintiff, and Stiglitz and ACCS each served their respective First Set of Interrogatories to

Plaintiff. (DE 16 ¶ 1; DE 16-1). After Myers-Ledesma failed to timely respond, Defendants’

counsel emailed Myers-Ledesma’s counsel on May 8, June 1, July 7, and July 14, each time

inquiring about the status of the discovery responses. (DE 16 ¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 7). Although MyersLedesma’s counsel repeatedly indicated that the discovery responses were forthcoming, the

responses were never produced. (DE 16 ¶ 8). Consequently, on August 23, 2017, Defendants

filed the instant motion to compel. (DE 16). As stated earlier, Myers-Ledesma has not responded

to the motion, and her time to do so has now passed.

B. Applicable Law

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party is permitted to file a motion to compel

discovery where another party fails to respond to interrogatories or requests for production of

documents. See Redmond v. Leatherwood, No. 06-C-1242, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (E.D. Wis.

Jan. 29, 2009). Together with the motion to compel, a party must file “a separate certification

that the party has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with the other affected parties in

an effort to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court action.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a);

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “A motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a) is addressed

to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Redmond, 2009 WL 212974, at *1 (citation omitted). 

C. Discussion

Defendants’ counsel has adequately attempted to confer in good faith with Myers2
Ledesma’s counsel in an effort to resolve this matter without Court action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(1); N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a). Although Myers-Ledesma’s counsel repeatedly indicated that

the discovery responses were forthcoming, ultimately Myers-Ledesma seems to have simply

ignored Defendants’ discovery requests and the instant motion to compel. Consequently, the

Court will GRANT the motion to compel and order Myers-Ledesma to respond to Defendants’

First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 2-11) and to answer Stiglitz’s

and ACCS’s respective First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 12-38), on or before

September 28, 2017. See, e.g., Redmond, 2009 WL 212974, at *1, 3 (granting plaintiff’s motion

to compel where defendants appeared to have “entirely ignored the plaintiff’s discovery

requests”).

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel (DE 16) is GRANTED. MyersLedesma is ORDERED to produce all documents responsive to Defendants’ First Request for

Production of Documents to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 2-11) and to answer Stiglitz’s and ACCS’s

respective First Request for Interrogatories to Plaintiff (DE 16-1 at 12-38), on or before

September 28, 2017. 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 14th day of September 2017. 

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

3