JENNIFER JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF HER MOTHER, JEWEL WALKER, DECEASED v. ARCADIA NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, L.L.C., ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2910 United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana Filed June 07, 2018 Counsel Georgia P. Kosmitis, Law Office of Georgia “Gia” Kosmitis, Harry Stafford Johnson, Gordon McKernan Injury Attorneys, Shreveport, LA, for Jennifer Jones. Penny N. Nowell, Alexander John Mijalis, Ronald E. Raney, Ryan O. Goodwin, Lunn Irion et al., Shreveport, LA, Raymon E. Watts, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Wicker Smith et al., Orlando, FL, for Arcadia Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC. Brady D. King, II, April Martin Hammett, McNew King et al., Monroe, LA, for Patients Compensation Fund. Hayes, Karen L., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM ORDER *1 Before the court is a motion to compel discovery responses and to set depositions, plus an associated request for costs and fees [doc. # 57] filed by plaintiff Jennifer Jones. The motion is opposed. For reasons assigned below, the motion to compel is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. Background On June 29, 2017, plaintiff Jennifer Jones served defendants Arcadia Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC d/b/a Willow Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (“Willow Ridge”), DTD HC, LLC, and D&N, LLC with written interrogatories and requests for production. (Interr. & Reqs. for Prod.; M/Compel, Exh.). On September 22, 2017, defendants provided plaintiff with their initial responses to the discovery requests. (Resp. to Interr. & Reqs. for Prod.; Opp. Memo., Exh. 1). At defendants' request, plaintiff executed a confidentiality agreement, and asked defendants to supplement their discovery responses. (Sept. 27, 2017, Letter from G. Kosmitis to R. Raney; M/Compel, Exh.). On October 2, 2017, defendants so complied. Plaintiff remained dissatisfied with the sufficiency of defendants' discovery production, and over the next couple of months the parties continued to discuss these matters. See M/Compel, Exhs. and Opp. Mem., Exhs. Meanwhile, plaintiff requested dates to take the depositions of various persons, including: Monica Lewis, Lisa Thomas, Luke Allen, Sylvia Madden, Bonnie Critton, Hollis Ann Lyles, Tony Wehunt, Mr. Denz, Mr. Eye, and defendants' expert, Nurse Gardunio. See Nov. 9, 2017 & Dec. 4, 2017, Letters from G. Kosmitis to R. Raney; Pl. M/Compel, Exhs.). The parties exchanged a considerable amount of correspondence regarding these issues. See Opp. Memo., Exhs. Ultimately, the parties were unsuccessful in their efforts to bridge their respective differences, and on January 3, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel full responses to her written discovery requests and to compel depositions of witnesses affiliated with defendants. Plaintiff also requested an award of fees and costs for having to file the motion. On January 26, 2018, defendants filed their opposition to the motion to compel. [doc. # 70]. On February 1, 2018, plaintiff filed her reply brief. [doc. # 73]. On February 1, 2018, the undersigned held a status conference with the parties at which time counsel advised the court that the parties were continuing their efforts to try to resolve some of the issues raised by the motion to compel. See Minutes [doc. # 74]. Therefore, the court deferred consideration of the motion until further notice from counsel. Subsequently, the parties opted to engage in settlement negotiations. Accordingly, the court continued to stay its hand on the motion to compel. Ultimately, however, the settlement efforts proved fruitless, and on April 27, 2018, defendants, DTD HC, L.L.C. and D&N L.L.C. renewed their prior motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and combined it with an alternative motion for summary judgment. [doc. # 79]. On May 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a response to DTD HC and D&N's motion, wherein she argued that it was premature because defendants still had not fully responded to her discovery requests, and she still had not taken the depositions of key witnesses. [doc. # 85]. Accordingly, plaintiff re-urged her pending motion to compel, and, in the meantime, asked the court to deny defendants' motion to dismiss/summary judgment. Id. *2 On May 9, 2018, the court held a status conference with the parties in which it, inter alia, set deadlines for supplemental briefs regarding plaintiff's motion to compel. (Minutes [doc. # 88]). On May 16, 2018, plaintiff filed her supplemental brief in support of her motion to compel. [doc. # 90]. On May 25, 2018, defendants filed their supplemental opposition to the compel. [doc. # 93]. On June 5, 2018, plaintiff a supplemental reply brief. [doc. # 96]. Thus, the matter is ripe. Analysis I. Written Discovery a) Law Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may serve an interrogatory on another party that relates to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2). The interrogatories must be answered by the party to whom they are directed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1). Rule 34 states that “a party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) ... to produce ... any designated documents or electronically stored information ... or any designated tangible things” that are within the “party's possession, custody, or control ...” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)(A) & (B).[1] Rule 34's definition of “possession, custody, or control,” includes more than actual possession or control of the materials; it also contemplates a party's “legal right or practical ability to obtain the materials from a nonparty to the action.” White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3423388 (M.D. La. Aug. 4, 2011 (citations omitted). A party must “make a reasonable search of all sources reasonably likely to contain responsive documents.” Id. A party also is “charged with knowledge of what its agents know or what is in records available to it.” Autery v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2010 WL 1489968 (W.D. La. Aug. 4, 2011) (citation omitted). Answers to interrogatories, and any objections thereto, are due within 30 days after service, unless the court orders, or the parties stipulate to a different period. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2). Similarly, a written response to a request for production, not served under Rule 26(d)(2), is due within 30 days after service, unless the court orders, or the parties stipulate to a different period. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A). A party objecting to discovery “must state with specificity the objection and how it relates to the particular request being opposed ...” Reyes v. Red Gold, Inc. 2006 WL 2729412 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2006) (citations omitted). In other words, to escape the production requirement, a responding party must interpose a valid objection to each contested discovery request. McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Conclusory objections that the requested discovery is “overly broad,” “burdensome,” “oppressive,” and “irrelevant,” do not suffice. Id. Furthermore, in the absence of good cause, when a party fails to object timely to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, then any objections thereto are waived. In re: United States of America, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir.1989); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)4). *3 Finally, a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, production, or inspection if a party, inter alia, fails to answer an interrogatory or fails to produce requested documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii-iv). An evasive or incomplete answer or response is treated as a failure to answer or respond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). b) Discussion The court will proceed to address the disputed requests, in turn. Interr. No. 1 Please provide the amount of money allocated or budgeted at Willow Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, L.L.C. for the years of 2014-2015 for: a. Nursing Staff; b. Beds, mattresses, linens; c. Wound care supplies and wound care equipment; d. Wheelchairs, canes, walkers or other mobility aides; e. Food and nutritional supplies; f. Administration and management. Suppl. Response: Respondents object to this Interrogatory as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Subject to that objection, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are those portions of Willow Ridge and Rehabilitation Center, L.L.C.'s budgets for 2014-2015 that are responsive to this Interrogatory subject to the conditions of the signed Protective Order. Argument: Defendants contend that they have produced the budgets in the form they existed and for the requested period. Thus, they maintain that they have fully and appropriately responded to the discovery request. Plaintiff argues that, although defendants produced an excerpted copy of their budget, they failed to answer the specific areas of inquiry. Plaintiff maintains that the allocations are easily accessible through defendants' accounting records, and that they are required to be kept for federal funding. Resolution: The court agrees that defendants should be able to produce this budget information for the 2014-2015 time period without much difficulty. Moreover, the requested information is potentially relevant to plaintiff's allegations of neglect/negligent care stemming from inadequate funding. A protective order already is in place. Defendants' objection is overruled. Interr. No. 2: Please set forth the names, last known addresses, dates of employment AND Louisiana nursing license numbers of all health care providers, including, but not limited to registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and nursing assistants/CNA's who conducted an assessment and/or provided care to Jewel Walker from February 10-March 13, 2015. Please do not refer to the nursing records, as full names, addresses, and license numbers do not appear in the records. Suppl. Response: Respondents have provided a complete copy of Jewel Walker's chart, and as per Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)(1)(2) this is sufficient detail for plaintiff's counsel to locate and identify the responsive individuals as readily as respondents. Subject to that objection, attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are the Time Care Reports for February and March 2017 which are produced subject to the conditions of the Protective Order. Respondents will provide any other requested information for specific employees. Argument: Defendants point out that they produced time cards for every employee at the facility for the weeks of February 27, 2015, to March 12, 2015. Therefore, they conclude that they have fully and completely responded to the discovery request. Nonetheless, they further argue that it is too burdensome and unreasonable for them to review personnel files for more than 100 employees to determine their last known addresses, license numbers, and dates of employment. *4 Plaintiff notes that, although defendants produced time cards with the employees' names, the cards do not contain the dates of employment, nor their license numbers. Plaintiff observes that this information is kept in the normal course of business. Resolution: The court finds that the requested information is relevant to plaintiff's claims, and is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, although defendants argue that they will have to review personnel files for more than 100 employees, plaintiff only is seeking information regarding employees who cared for, or assessed the decedent during a limited two month period. It seems unlikely that more than 100 employees were involved in her care during that period. Defendants' objection is overruled. Interr. No. 9: Please set forth the total amount of all money billed from any sources, medicare, medicaid, private pay or other for care and services to be provided to Jewel Walker from the date of her admission through discharge by your facility Response: Respondents object to this Interrogatory as beyond material relevant to the plaintiffs' claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Subject to that objection, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are the billing records for Jewel Walker. Argument: The parties did not address this interrogatory in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. Plaintiff originally argued that, although defendants produced a copy of the decedent's billing records, they did not provide a total amount billed, nor total amount received. Defendants argue that they have produced the decedent's entire billing record, and have no additional responsive documents. Accordingly, they conclude that plaintiff can calculate the total amount billed by reviewing the billing statement produced. Resolution: The court will not require defendants to total up the bills for the plaintiffs. Insofar, as plaintiff's motion still seeks to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory, it is denied. Interr. No. 11: Please state the total number of nursing assistants that worked in providing patient care on each shift for the weeks of February 27, 2015, to March 12, 2015. Suppl. Response: Respondents object to this Interrogatory as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Respondents have provided a complete copy of Jewel Walker's chart ... Argument: Defendants argue that they produced time cards for every employee at the facility for the weeks of February 27, 2015, to March 12, 2015. Therefore, they conclude that they have fully and completely responded to the discovery request. Plaintiff argues that they cannot glean the requested information from the decedent's chart or the time cards. Plaintiff emphasizes that the partial production does not answer the simple question of how many nurses and nursing assistants worked on the dates in question. Resolution: The court agrees with plaintiff. This is a simple interrogatory that defendants should be able to answer without undue effort. Defendants shall provide numbers for each of the shifts in question. Interr. No. 12: Please state the total number of licensed nurses that worked in providing patient care on each shift for the weeks of February 27, 2015, to March 12, 2015. *5 Suppl. Response: Respondents object to this Interrogatory as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Respondents have provided a complete copy of Jewel Walker's chart ... Argument: Defendants argue that they produced time cards for every employee at the facility for the weeks of February 27, 2015, to March 12, 2015. They conclude that they have fully and completely responded to the discovery request. Plaintiff argues that they cannot glean the requested information from her chart or the time cards. She emphasizes that the partial production does not answer the simple question of how many nurses and nursing assistants worked on the dates in question. Resolution: The court agrees with plaintiff. This is a simple interrogatory that defendants should be able to answer without undue effort. Defendants shall provide numbers for each of the shifts in question. Interr. No. 13: Did you provide Ms. Walker with any special equipment, mattress bolsters, booties, pads, pillows for prevention sores? If so, please set forth the type of prevention equipment provided and the date first implemented. Response: Respondents have provided a complete copy of Jewel Walker's chart, and as per Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)(1)(2), this is sufficient detail for plaintiff's counsel to locate and identify the responsive information sought by way of this interrogatory. Argument: The parties did not address this interrogatory in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. Defendants argue that, to the extent the information exists, it would be located in the facility chart. Willow Ridge does not maintain independent records of specific equipment used by any singular resident. Plaintiff argues that the equipment provided is not listed in the chart. Resolution: As the court appreciates the matter, defendants maintain that they do not have any further information responsive to the interrogatory. Accordingly, the court cannot order them to supplement that which they do not possess. Of course, if the information does not exist, then defendants plainly cannot adduce evidence at trial that they provided the decedent with specific, special equipment for the prevention of bed sores. Plaintiff's motion to compel a supplemental response to this discovery request is denied. Prod. Req. No. 1: Please produce a copy of all work schedules and payroll productive hour reports, and/or time sheets/cards showing the identity (names), number (quantity), and classification (LPN, RN, CNA, etc.) of any nursing personnel for each tour of duty including any relief, pool, or agency personnel who worked at [sic] Jewel Walker from February 9, 2015-March 13, 2015. Suppl. Response: Respondents object to this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Respondents have provided a complete copy of Jewel Walker's chart, and as per Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)(1)(2), this is sufficient detail for plaintiff's counsel to locate and identify information responsive to this Request. Subject to those objections, see Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No 2 and Exhibit 2 attached hereto. Argument: Defendants argue that they produced time cards for every employee at the facility for the weeks of February 27, 2015, to March 12, 2015. Therefore, they conclude that they have responded fully and completely to the discovery request. *6 Plaintiff argues that the determination of who was scheduled, and how many nursing staff members were scheduled is vital to determining whether defendants met the requirements of 42 C.F.R. § 483.30(A), and safe staffing laws in Louisiana. Plaintiff stresses that the staffing schedules are relevant to her claim that defendants has insufficient staff on hand to care for the decedent. Resolution: The court sides with plaintiff. Defendants shall supplement its response with copies of the work schedules for the requested personnel. Prod. Req. No. 2: Please provide in written form the policies and procedures in effect from February 10-March 13, 2015, for budget and allocation of funds for patient care, equipment, linens, beds, mattresses, pillows, nutrition/food, allocation of funds for nursing services including hiring, firing, and number of nurses, staffing, staffing matrix, nursing home patient rights, pressure ulcer treatment and prevention, infection control, prevention and treatment of infection, reporting changes in condition, physician supervision, resident and family rights and grievances, nursing documentation, nursing assistant documentation, turning and repositioning, recording amount of consumption, intake and output. Suppl. Response: Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is the table of contents from the Resident Care Policies and Procedures provided subject to the conditions of the signed Protective Order. Respondents agree to produce relevant policies and procedures subject to the signed Protective Order. In order to avoid any confusion based on terminology, respondents will request that the plaintiffs please identify the sections by title believed to be relevant. Argument: Plaintiff argues that on April 25, 2018, she went to defense counsel's office and was provided a table of contents and told to highlight those policies she was interested in, without the ability to access all of the policies. Furthermore, defendants produced clearly irrelevant policies in an attempt to waste counsel's time. Defendants argue that they have fully and completely responded to the discovery request, having provided more than 200 pages of policies to plaintiff's counsel for review and inspection. They maintain that all of the documents provided to counsel were responsive to her request. Resolution: It is the court's understanding that defendants have produced ALL responsive documents. Therefore, the court cannot order them to supplement that which they do not possess. Plaintiff's motion to compel a supplemental response to this discovery request is denied. Prod. Req. No. 5: Please produce a copy of all cost reports and Ownership Disclosure records filed with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals for your facility Willow Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation and Arcadia Nursing and Rehabilitation for the years 2014 and 2015. Response: Respondents object to this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Argument: The parties did not address this request for production in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. Defendants originally argued that the ownership of Willow Ridge was not in dispute. They pointed out that plaintiff already had copies of Willow Ridge's 2014 Nursing Facility Medicaid Cost Report and a copy of the facility's filing with the Louisiana Secretary of State. Thus, they conclude that they should not have to produce anything further *7 Resolution: The court finds that this information is relevant to plaintiff's efforts to establish personal jurisdiction over the members of Arcadia Nursing L.L.C. Insofar as this request remains disputed, defendants shall supplement its production with any more responsive documents in its possession. Prod. Req. No. 6: Please produce a complete, consecutively numbered, certified, COLOR, electronic copy of all records, documents, photographs, videos, films, recordation of any kind pertaining to Jewel Walker in your possession ... Response: The requested document does not exist in this form. Respondents have provided a complete copy of Jewel Walker' report. Resolution: The parties did not address this request for production in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. The court appreciates that plaintiff has limited the time-frame for her claims against Arcadia. However, her entire chart remains potentially relevant to her claims, and she is entitled to a copy of it. Accordingly, to the extent they have not already done so, defendants shall supplement their production with an entire copy of the decedent's records, at a charge not to exceed that allowed by federal and/or state law. Prod. Req. No. 8: Please produce a copy of the budget, cost reports, and/or OSCAR reports for Arcadia Nursing/Willow Ridge for the year of 2015 for patient care, nursing services, equipment and supplies. Response: Respondents object to this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiffs' claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Subject to that objection, respondents will produce those portions of Willow Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, L.L.C.'s budgets for 2014-2015 responsive to the Request subject to an agreed Protective Order. Resolution: The parties did not address this request for production in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. The court finds that this information is relevant and proportional to plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, to the extent they have not already done so, defendants shall produce the requested documents. Prod. Req. No. 9: Produce a copy of the job descriptions of the following positions and the names of each person who was fulfilling these positions at Willow Ridge from February -March 2015 ... Response: Respondents object to parts 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery ... Resolution: The parties did not address this request for production in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. The court finds that this information is relevant to plaintiff's claims. Thus, to the extent they have not already done so, and insofar as the position and the information exists, defendants shall supplement their response to fully respond to the request. Prod. Req. No. 12: Please produce a copy of all agreements, outline of responsibilities, and/or contracts with DTD and/or D&N and Arcadia Nursing/Willow Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Suppl. Response: Respondents object to this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiffs' claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Subject to that objection, there are no agreements and/or contracts between Arcadia Nursing/Willow Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and DTD HC, L.L.C. and/or D&N, L.L.C. *8 Argument: Defendants maintain that there are no contracts between Arcadia Nursing and DTD HC. Accordingly, there are no responsive documents. Although, there apparently exists a contract between Aurora Cares, L.L.C. and Arcadia Nursing, plaintiff's discovery request did not explicitly seek that document. Resolution: The court cannot order defendants to produce documents that do not exist. Moreover, plaintiff's request did not seek contracts between Arcadia Nursing and Aurora Cares. If plaintiff desires that additional contract(s), then she will have to issue a supplemental request for production, subject to any timeliness arguments raised by defendants. Plaintiff's motion to compel supplementation of this discovery request is denied. Prod. Req. No. 13: Please produce a copy of income generated by Willow Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center to DTD and D&N for the years of 2014 and 2015. This should include all payments of management fees, profits, or lease/rental fees. Response: Respondents object to this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiffs' claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Argument: Defendants contend that to the extent funds were distributed from Arcadia to its members, the distributions are not discoverable. They maintain that there are no contracts between DTD HC and/or D&N with Arcadia Nursing. Therefore, there are no responsive documents. They emphasize that the facility was never insolvent or unable to satisfy its obligations. Accordingly, plaintiff should not be granted access to proprietary financial information merely because she also sued the owners of Arcadia Nursing. Plaintiff argues that profits, costs, and allocation of funds between interrelated entities is relevant to her claims for improper allocation of funding toward patient care, improper capitalization, and funneling of assets to the members in lieu of providing proper care to the patients. Resolution: The court finds that the requested information is relevant to plaintiff's claims, including her efforts to establish personal jurisdiction over the members of Arcadia Nursing. Defendants' objection is overruled. Prod. Req. No. 15: Please produce a copy of all OSCAR reports and/or reports of staffing, budget, cost reports or allocation of funds provided to any federal or state agency for the year 2015. Response: See Response to Request for Production No. 8 Resolution: The parties did not address this request for production in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. The court finds that this information is relevant and proportional to plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, to the extent they have not already done so, defendants shall produce the requested documents. Prod. Req. No. 16: Please produce an audit report, or list of all persons who have accessed records, obtained copies, and viewed any records as required by HIPAA, including dates, names, and purpose for access of Mrs. Walker's chart since she left your facility in March, 2015. Response: Respondents object to this Request as beyond material relevant to the plaintiff's claims and good cause does not exist for this discovery. Resolution: The parties did not address this request for production in their supplemental briefs, so it may no longer be disputed. The court finds that this information is relevant and proportional to plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, to the extent they have not already done so, and if the documents exist, defendants shall produce them. If no responsive documents exist, defendants shall so state in their supplement their supplemental response. II. Depositions *9 A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including another party, but must provide reasonable written notice to every other party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a) & (b)(1). In addition, a party may name an entity as a deponent so long as the party also describes with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). The named entity/deponent then must designate one or more persons or officials and the matters upon which each will testify. Id. Plaintiff complains of difficulties scheduling the depositions of the following individuals, which she detailed in her supplemental brief, as follows: 1. Norbert Bennet, affiant, and partial owner of Arcadia Nursing & Rehabilitation, D&N, L.L.C. and CEO of Aurora Care, d/b/a Tara Cares. Defendants have refused to cooperate in scheduling his deposition or to produce him for deposition at all. 2. Donald Denz, affiant, and partial owner of Arcadia Nursing & Rehabilitation, D&N, L.L.C. and CEO of Aurora Care, d/b/a Tara Cares. Defendants have refused to cooperate in scheduling or to provide any dates for his deposition at all. 3. Gary F. Eye, preparer of cost reports, financials and accounting for Arcadia Nursing & Rehabilitation. Defendant has refused to cooperate in scheduling his deposition or providing notice of his address or information related to being able to depose Mr. Eye. 4. Tony Wehunt, who has been identified as the “Governing Body” of Arcadia Nursing & Rehab. Yet, when plaintiff sought to depose him, defendants refused to produce him for deposition and cooperate in scheduling deposition of him and has not provided any address for him stating that he lives out of town. 5. Monica Lewis, affiant, and Executive Director of Arcadia Nursing & Rehab. Although dates were being worked out for her deposition, we requested that we be provided the policies and procedures and other documents relevant to her deposition prior to having to take her deposition. These items have yet to be produced. 6. Luke Allen, Executive Director of Arcadia Nursing & Rehab. Defendant has refused to produce Mr. Allen for deposition nor agreed plaintiff may contact him directly. 7. Lisa Thomas, Kathy Hall, Paula Morris, DON in charge of patient care for 2014-2015. Although dates were being worked out for their depositions, we requested that we be provided the policies and procedures and other documents relevant to her deposition prior to having to take her deposition. These items have yet to be produced. 8. Expert Nurse Gardunio. Defendant has suggested that plaintiff will need to travel to Montana for this deposition and to take the deposition beginning at 6 p.m. This is unreasonable. It is simply improper for plaintiff to incur the costs associated with having to travel to Montana when she resides in Dubach, Louisiana. We believe this is unreasonable, as Nurse Gardunio's residence is in Louisiana, and she's only in Montana temporarily. (Pl. Suppl. Memo.). It is the court's understanding, that following the supplemental production of documents as provided herein, defendants will cooperate with the rescheduling of deposition dates for the current and former employees listed in Nos. 5-7 above. For former employees, plaintiff may need to serve them personally with deposition notices/subpoenas. The parties shall cooperate with the scheduling of Nurse Gardunio's deposition during one of her visits to Louisiana. If this is not feasible because of time constraints, defendants shall make her available for her deposition to be taken remotely during normal business hours in this time zone. *10 The court finds that Gary Eye's anticipated testimony regarding Arcadia Nursing's costs and financials is potentially relevant to plaintiff's claims. According to defendants, however, Gary Eye is not employed by them. Therefore, plaintiff will need to take Eye's deposition in the state where he resides. If defendants do not wish to assist with the scheduling of his deposition, then they should provide plaintiff with Eye's last known address so plaintiff may serve him with a subpoena. Defendants apparently identified Tony Wehunt as the “Governing Body” of Arcadia Nursing & Rehab. Therefore, it stands to reason that defendants will identify him as the deponent in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for Arcadia Nursing. Moreover, plaintiff does not identify any other basis for seeking Wehunt's deposition in his personal capacity. The court agrees with defendants that plaintiff should employ the Rule 30(b)(6) mechanism to obtain Wehunt's testimony in his capacity as the Governing Body of Arcadia Nursing. Thereafter, defendants will have to make Wehunt available in Louisiana, or upon agreement of counsel, facilitate the taking of his testimony remotely. Finally, the court will not compel defendants to make Denz and Bennet available for deposition, in their individual capacities. Denz and Bennet are member-owners of DTD HC and D&N, respectively. They provided affidavits on behalf of the LLCs for purposes of the personal jurisdiction issue. Therefore, plaintiff should employ the Rule 30(b)(6) procedural device to take the depositions for the entities that they represent. Given the tenuous nature of plaintiff's claims against these LLCs, plaintiff will need to take the depositions in person where the LLCs are headquartered, or upon agreement of counsel, remotely. III. Costs, Expenses, and/or Fees The court generally must award reasonable expenses to the prevailing party on a motion to compel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). The rule authorizes exceptions, however, for non-disclosures and responses that were substantially justified, or other circumstances that make an award unjust. Id. Moreover, when, as here, a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses associated with the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C). Considering the mixed relief obtained by movant, the court is not inclined to assess costs, expenses, and/or fees in this instance. Conclusion For the above-assigned reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses and to set depositions [doc. # 57] is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as detailed in the body this decision. Defendants shall supplement their written discovery responses within the next fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for costs, expenses, and/or fees [doc. # 57] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery completion deadline is extended until July 18, 2018. Plaintiff is granted leave of court to file a supplemental brief in opposition to defendants' pending motion to dismiss [doc. # 79] within seven (7) days after the deadline for the completion of discovery. Defendants may file a reply brief within seven (7) days after plaintiff's supplemental brief. In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 7th day of June 2018. Footnotes [1] Under Rule 26(b), [u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may 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. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The courts understand the rule to provide for broad and liberal discovery. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-5 (1964); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947). Nonetheless, the scope of discovery is limited by relevance, albeit “relevance” is to be broadly construed. Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982).