RHONDA CANNON ET AL. v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2392 United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana Filed April 16, 2021 Counsel Laurence Cohen, Law Offices of Laurence Cohen, New Orleans, LA, for Rhonda Cannon, Marcus White, Barbara Neville, Royal Neville, Jr. Brent A. Talbot, Jesse Gerard Frank, Nicole Celia Katz, Chaffe McCall, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for CSX Transportation, Inc. Phillips, Donna C., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER AND REASONS *1 Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses and Inspection (ECF No. 11) is pending before me in this matter. Plaintiff has filed a timely Response. ECF No. 18. Defendant sought leave and filed a Reply Memorandum. ECF Nos. 19, 21. Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein. I. BACKGROUND While Plaintiffs were attending church at Mount Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church in Eastern New Orleans, a CSX train derailed outside of the church building. ECF No. 1-2, ¶¶ 1–3, at 1. Plaintiffs claim that the force of the impact between the train and the ground shook the church building and its occupants, causing both injury and damage. Id. ¶ 4, at 1–2. The Court's October 9, 2020 Scheduling Order established a June 7, 2021 trial date, with a discovery deadline of March 29, 2021. ECF No. 7, at 2, 4. Defendant issued discovery requests on February 23, 2021. ECF No. 11-3. Defendant also sought to inspect the property. Id. at 9. When Plaintiffs did not respond to the discovery within 30 days, Defendant filed this Motion to Compel seeking an order compelling each Plaintiff to respond fully and completely, without objection, within three days of this Order and requiring them to give Defendant timely access to the property for inspection and photographs. ECF No. 11, at 1. Defendants also seek costs. Id. at 2. In response to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs argue that the bulk of the information sought has already been provided through depositions. ECF No. 18, at 1. Plaintiffs ask that they be allowed to hold their responses in abeyance until after the scheduled April 15, 2021 settlement conference. Id. at 1. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to propound interrogatories, requests for production and inspection. Absent a stipulation otherwise, a party must respond or object to interrogatories and requests for production within 30 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). “[A] party served with written discovery must fully answer each interrogatory or document request to the full extent that it is not objectionable and affirmatively explain what portion of an interrogatory or document request is objectionable and why, affirmatively explain what portion of the interrogatory or document request is not objectionable and the subject of the answer or response, and affirmatively explain whether any responsive information or documents have been withheld.”[1] If a party fails to respond fully in a timely manner, the party seeking discovery may move to compel responses and for appropriate sanctions under Rule 37. The moving party bears the burden to establish that the materials requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, after which the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant or otherwise should not be permitted.[2] The failure to respond to discovery may result in a waiver of objections.[3] However, the failure to timely object on the basis of privilege does not result in an automatic waiver.[4] A finding of privilege waiver is a serious sanction reserved for cases of unjustified delay, inexcusable conduct, bad faith, or other flagrant violations.[5] *2 Having failed to timely respond to the discovery requests, Plaintiffs are deemed to have waived all objections other than privilege. However, Defendant has neither attached a full copy of its discovery requests (see ECF 11-3), nor and has it specified the particular requests, and thus it has failed to carry its initial burden of establishing that the requests seek relevant information. That deficiency in proof on this Motion to Compel, however, does not excuse Plaintiffs’ total failure to respond to the discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide full and complete responses to Defendant's discovery requests within 7 days of this Order. Plaintiffs must also allow Defendant to inspect the property within 7 days. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated herein. Defendant's request for fees and costs is denied. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of April, 2021. Footnotes [1] Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 580 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (citation omitted). [2] Wymore v. Nail, No. 14-3493, 2016 WL 1452437, at *1 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2016) (“Once a party moving to compel discovery establishes that the materials and information it seeks are relevant or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the burden rests upon the party resisting discovery to substantiate its objections.”); Tingle v. Hebert, No. 15-626, 2016 WL 7230499, at *2 (M.D. La. Dec. 14, 2016) (“The moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are relevant to the action ....”) (quotation omitted); Davis v. Young, No. 11-2309, 2012 WL 530917, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 16, 2012) (same) (citing Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006)). [3] See In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[A]s a general rule, when a party fails to object timely to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, objections thereto are waived.”); see also 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Proc. Civ. 2d § 2204 (2d ed. 1994) (“[T]he discovery rules constitute an integrated mechanism and they must be read in pari materia.”); B&S Equip. Co. v. Truckla Servs., Inc., No. 09-3862, 2011 WL 2637289, at *5 (E.D. La. July 6, 2011). [4] B&S Equip. Co., 2011 WL 2637289, at *5 (citation omitted). [5] Id. (citation omitted).