STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
An informal telephonic conference was held on February 15, 2017, regarding the parties' discovery dispute. Counsel Patrick Suter appeared for Plaintiff and Defendant, appearing pro se, appeared telephonically.
On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action to recover allegedly unpaid and delinquent federally insured student loans. (Compl. at ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant executed six promissory notes to secure loans that were reinsured by the United States Department of Education under loan guaranty programs authorized under Title IV-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1701
On December 7, 2016, a scheduling order issued. (ECF No. 11.) The parties contacted the Court to schedule an informal discovery dispute conference and on February 1, 2017, a minute order issued setting the conference for February 15, 2017. (ECF No. 13.) The parties filed a letter brief addressing the discovery dispute on February 10, 2017. (ECF No. 14.) The parties raise three issues in the current dispute: 1) Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories; 2) Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's first set of requests for admissions; and 3) Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's first set of requests for production.
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to obtain discovery "regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Motions to compel are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which states, in pertinent part:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may serve upon another party written interrogatories that relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b)(1) and (2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). The interrogatories must be answered by the party to whom they are directed within thirty days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). Any objection to the interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). A party may move for an order compelling an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may serve upon any other party a request for production of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing within the party's possession, custody, and control that is within the scope of Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(B). The party receiving the request has thirty days in which to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). A party may move for an order compelling production where the opposing party fails to produce documents as requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv).
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may serve upon any other party a written request to admit the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26 for purposes of the pending action relating to facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). If the party to whom the request is directed does not serve a written answer or objection within thirty days after being served, the matter is admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). A requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). If the court finds that an answer does not comply with Rule 36, the court may order that an amended answer be served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).
Plaintiff propounded 24 separate interrogatories requesting Defendant to provide facts and identify witnesses and documents related to each of the denials and affirmative defenses set forth in his answer. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) Plaintiff propounded 23 separate requests for admissions that required Defendant to admit or deny that he executed promissory notes for the loans at issue in this action, that it is his signature on the promissory notes attached to the requests, and that he has outstanding balances on the loans. (
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's responses to the interrogatories are insufficient, because if Defendant cannot respond to the requests, he must state under oath that he is unable to provide the information and must describe the efforts used to obtain the information. Plaintiff contends that Defendant should be able to discover facts about the loans.
In response to the three issues in the instant dispute, Defendant asserts that he does not have any documents or specific memory of the loans almost thirty years later. Defendant contends that he does not have access to his records of the settlement which he states was when he repaid his student loan obligation in full. Defendant states that both plaintiff's counsel in the settlement action and his bank have informed him that due to the age of the documents, no settlement or payment records currently exist.
Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). "A party answering interrogatories has an affirmative duty to furnish any and all information available to the party."
To comply with the discovery rules, Defendant must confirm that he has made a thorough attempt to obtain the information. The Court finds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's request for interrogatories are not sufficient to meet his discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is required to supplement his responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) and 33.
As to Plaintiff's request for admissions, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's qualified denials claiming that he lacked necessary information to admit are improper. Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not provide the required specificity for each denial and has not indicated that he made the required reasonable inquiry.
When a party fails to admit or deny a request for admission based on a lack of knowledge or information, the party must state that it has made a reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4);
To comply with the discovery rules, Defendant must confirm that he has made a reasonable inquiry to obtain the information. The Court finds that Defendant's responses to the requests for admissions are not sufficient to meet his discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is required to supplement his responses to the requests for admissions in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) and 36.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant's response that he is not in possession of any responsive documents and that the documents are believed to be in the file of his former law group that he does not have access to is inadequate. Plaintiff argues that the documents are within Defendant's possession, custody, or control, and that if he does not have actual possession of them, he has the legal right to obtain them. Plaintiff contends that the responses do not mention any effort to obtain responsive documents.
The Federal Rules require a party responding to requests for production to make "a reasonable inquiry to determine whether responsive documents exist, and if they do not, the `party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.'"
To comply with the discovery rules, Defendant must confirm that he has made a thorough search for responsive documents using due diligence. The Court finds that Defendant's responses to the requests for production are not sufficient to meet his discovery obligations. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is required to supplement his responses to the requests for production of documents in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) and 34.
"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, documents sought in discovery motions must be within the `possession, custody or control' of the party upon whom the request is served."
This may require Defendant to obtain documents from third parties in order to comply with his discovery obligations. Further, as discussed above, if no responsive documents are identified after a reasonable and diligent search, then Defendant must state so in response to each category or item requested.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, first set of requests for admissions, and first set of requests for production within fourteen days of the service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
