Filed: Jul. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER DAVID L. RUSSELL , District Judge . On July 13, 2016 Defendant filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 25), seeking to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery propounded to her in January, 2016. 1 Plaintiff filed a Response entitled "Plaintiffs Answer for the Honorable Court and Defendants Interrogatories Under Plaintiff's Protests" (Doc. No. 26). Defendant filed a Reply brief in support of its position. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows. 2 Defenda
Summary: ORDER DAVID L. RUSSELL , District Judge . On July 13, 2016 Defendant filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 25), seeking to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery propounded to her in January, 2016. 1 Plaintiff filed a Response entitled "Plaintiffs Answer for the Honorable Court and Defendants Interrogatories Under Plaintiff's Protests" (Doc. No. 26). Defendant filed a Reply brief in support of its position. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows. 2 Defendan..
More
ORDER
DAVID L. RUSSELL, District Judge.
On July 13, 2016 Defendant filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 25), seeking to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery propounded to her in January, 2016.1 Plaintiff filed a Response entitled "Plaintiffs Answer for the Honorable Court and Defendants Interrogatories Under Plaintiff's Protests" (Doc. No. 26). Defendant filed a Reply brief in support of its position. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows.2
Defendant's motion indicates that Plaintiff failed to respond to either interrogatories or requests for production in a timely manner. Defendant seeks an Order requiring Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests or to dismiss this action because Plaintiff has failed to participate, cooperate and comply with Defendant's reasonable discovery requests, as permitted by Rule 37.3 Defendant also seeks costs and fees associated with the motion.
In response to the Motion, Plaintiff dedicates substantial discussion to her belief that Defendant has repeatedly offered to settle this action for a sum less than the medical bills she has already incurred. Thereafter she makes an attempt to respond to certain of the discovery requests, although she prefaces her response by asserting that the interrogatories are not "constitutionally allowed" and by asserting that Defendant's litigation conduct entitles her to seek punitive damages. Doc. No. 26, p. 3.
It appears to the Court that Plaintiff has, by virtue of her filing, sufficiently responded to Interrogatories 1 through 3. However, Plaintiff made no attempt to respond to Interrogatories 4 through 27 and is therefore ordered to respond fully and completely not later than August 5, 2016.4 With regard to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff provided copies of bills for Emergency Room and radiology services, all from December 1, 2013. These documents are not fully responsive to Defendant's Request. As such, Plaintiff shall respond to all Requests for Production and shall specifically identify whether she has any documents responsive to each Request made by Defendant. Furthermore, she shall provide a signed Medical Authorization as requested by Defendant. These responses and the authorization shall similarly be provided to Defendant not later than August 5, 2016. Failure to respond in a timely and complete manner will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice without further notice.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
