Michael Scott FOSTER, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and John Does 1-5, Defendants Civil No. 2:22-cv-50-HSO-BWR United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division Signed March 13, 2023 Counsel J. Kobie Watson, Watson Legal Group, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff. Calen J. Wills, John A. Banahan, Bryan, Nelson, Schroeder, Castigliola & Banahan, Pascagoula, MS, for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Rath, Bradley W., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING [22] MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND INITIAL DISCLOSURES *1 BEFORE THE COURT is the [22] Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses and Initial Disclosures filed by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Plaintiff filed a [27] Response titled “Plaintiff's Response to Defendants[‘s] Motion to Strike Expert Designation and Motion to Compel Discovery.” Yet, it does not include any substantive discussion of the [22] Motion to Compel, despite receiving an extension of time to respond. For the reasons below, the Court will grant the [22] Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) governs motions to compel. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling discovery disclosure or responses against a party that has failed to make initial disclosures required under Federal Rule 26(a), answer interrogatories propounded under Federal Rule 33, or produce documents requested under Federal Rule 34. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). II. DISCUSSION A. Initial Disclosures Federal Rule 26(a)(1)(C) requires parties to exchange initial disclosures without request and upon their own initiative within fourteen days of the Rule 26(f) conference, or by a time stipulated by the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). The Rule specifies what type of disclosures a party must make, including: contact information of people who may have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support their claims or defenses and copies or descriptions of documents, tangible items, or electronic files the disclosing party has in its possession and may use to support its claims or defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Consistent with that directive, Local Rule 26(a)(1)(A) provides that: Within the time designated in the court's initial order setting the FED.R.CIV.P. 16 conference, the parties must make the disclosure required by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1). Disclosures must be made no later than seven days before the Case Management Conference unless a different time is set by court order or unless a party objects during the attorney conference and states the objection in the proposed case management order. At the time of the submission of the proposed case management order, the parties must certify that the conference required by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f) has taken place and that the initial disclosures have been made. L. U. Civ. R. 26(a)(1)(A). If one party fails to make their required initial disclosures, then the other party may move to compel initial disclosures and for appropriate sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A). In turn, Federal Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that if the court grants the motion to compel, then it must order the non-compliant party, his attorney, or both, to pay the movant's “reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion [to compel] ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). When the [6] Case Management Order was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, the parties represented to the Court that the pre-discovery disclosure requirements “ha[d] been complied with fully.” Case Management Order [6] at 2. Yet, Plaintiff had not, and has not, made his required initial disclosures. Considering Plaintiff's ongoing and unexplained failure to provide initial disclosures, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Defendant's request to compel Plaintiff to provide them. Plaintiff must produce his initial disclosures no later than March 23, 2023. No extensions of this deadline will be granted. If Plaintiff fails to provide complete initial disclosure by March 23, 2023, Plaintiff may be subject to sanctions under Federal Rule 37(b)(2). B. Interrogatories *2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs the process of propounding and responding to interrogatories. The Rule explicitly provides that “[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath,” and “[t]he grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's interrogatories are defective for three reasons. First, Defendant propounded interrogatories to Plaintiff on July 1, 2022. Notice [7]. Responses to interrogatories must be provided within thirty (30) days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Plaintiff did not provide his responses until October 8, 2022. Notice. [12]. Yet, the docket does not reflect that Plaintiff made a request to extend the deadline to respond to Defendant's interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiff's interrogatory responses were untimely. Second, Plaintiff did not sign his interrogatory responses. See Ex. [22-3] at 7. Federal Rule 33(b)(5) requires interrogatories to be signed by the party answering them, the party's attorney signs any objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5); see also Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. Explo Sys., Inc., No. 12-3080, 2015 WL 7736650, at *3 n.7 (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2015) (“Answers to interrogatories must be written, and signed under oath by the party to whom the interrogatories were directed—not his or her attorney.”). By failing to sign his interrogatory responses, Plaintiff violated Federal Rule 33. Finally, Plaintiff failed to fully answer each interrogatory. Regarding the sufficiency of an interrogatory response, the Fifth Circuit has observed, “[d]iscovery by interrogatory requires candor in responding ... The candor required is a candid statement of the information sought or of the fact that objection is made to furnishing the information. A partial answer by a party reserving an undisclosed objection to answering fully is not candid. It is evasive.” Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613, 616-17 (5th Cir. 1977). Plaintiff responded to the majority of Defendant's interrogatories with a variation of “See documents,” “will supplement,” “Will supplement,” “See Complaint, emails, documents provided.” See Ex. [22-3] at 1-8. The three responses that did not employ those phrases, however, are equally deficient. For example, Interrogatory No. 11, states: Identify all insurance claims and losses you have had in the past ten (10) years. For each claim identified, please state: (a) the insurance company with which the claim was filed; (b) the date of the event which caused the claim to be filed; (c) the facts associated with the claim; (d) the claim number; (e) whether or not you were paid under the claim, and if so, the amount paid; and (f) the persons at the insurance company with whom you communicated. Id. at 45. Plaintiff responded, “Vehicle Injury December 2016.” Id. at 5. Such responses lack the requisite candor articulated by the Fifth Circuit. Indicating an intent to supplement does not demonstrate a candid statement of the information sought or provide a specific objection to support the non-provision of the requested information. Nor does Plaintiff's four-word response to a six-part question seeking information from the previous ten years offer a candid statement of the information sought or provide a specific objection to support the lack of responsive information. At best, it demonstrates the types of partial answer based on undisclosed objections that the Fifth Circuit has long held improper. Dollar, 561 F.2d at 616-17. By failing to timely provide complete interrogatory responses, Plaintiff violated Federal Rule 33. *3 Plaintiff's citations to the complaint and other unspecified “documents,” do not cure these deficiencies. While Federal Rule 33(d) permits a party to produce business records in response to an interrogatory, it requires that a party doing so specifically identify the records. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Courts throughout this Circuit have routinely held that general references to other documents, including other pleadings, is improper, insufficient, and unresponsive. See Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Citco Group Ltd., Civ. No., 2017 WL 2825925, at *6 (M.D. La. June 30, 2017) (collecting cases). Federal Rule 33(b)(4) provides that “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The Fifth Circuit has explained “as a general rule, when a party fails to object timely to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, objections thereto are waived.” In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989). By failing to timely respond to the interrogatories, and in the absence of good cause, Plaintiff has waived his right to assert objections to the interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiff must provide complete responses – without objections, except for attorney-privilege and work product related objections – to Defendant's interrogatories no later than March 23, 2023. If Plaintiff fails to do so, he may be subject to sanctions. C. Requests for Production Federal Rule 34 governs requests for production of documents. “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.” Jones v. McDonough, Civ. No. 1:21-cv-68, 2022 WL 704210, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 8, 2022) (quoting Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 485 (N.D. Tex. 2014)). Responses to requests for production of documents are due thirty (30) days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). In responding to requests for production, “[f]or each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If a party wishes to object, the “objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). The party resisting discovery must show specifically how each discovery request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable. See McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990). A party resisting discovery must show how the requested discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden. Jones, 2022 WL 704210, at *4 (citing Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 475, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2005)). “Failing to do so, as a general matter, makes such an unsupported objection nothing more than unsustainable boilerplate.” Jones, 2022 WL 704210, at *4 (quoting Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 490). *4 Defendant propounded eighteen requests for production of documents to Plaintiff on July 1, 2022. Notice [8]. Plaintiff did not respond to those requests until October 8, 2022, over three months later. Notice [13]. Yet, the docket does not reflect that Plaintiff made a request to extend the deadline to respond to Defendant's requests for production. Thus, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant's requests for production. Plaintiff responded to thirteen of Defendant's requests for production by directing Defendant to “see documents” and indicating that supplementation would be forthcoming. Ex. [22-5] at 1-4. Plaintiff responded to two of the requests, Request for Production Fifteen and Sixteen, by directing Defendant to “see complaint.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff also responded to one request, Request for Production Seventeen, by stating “[w]ill supplement.” Id. These responses are insufficient to comply with Federal Rule 34(b)(2)(B)’s mandate to respond to requests for production by “either stat[ing] that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or stat[ing] with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). In responses to the two remaining requests for production, Request for Production Twelve and Eighteen, Plaintiff responded, “Not Applicable.” Ex. [22-5] at 3-4. This response is also insufficient for the same reason stated above. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). “Not Applicable” is neither a full response, nor a specific objection. By failing to timely respond to the requests for production, and in the absence of good cause, Plaintiff has waived his right to assert objections in response. Thus, Plaintiff must provide complete responses – without objections, except for attorney-privilege and work product related objections – to Defendant's requests for production no later than March 23, 2023. If Plaintiff fails to do so, he may be subject to sanctions. D. Failure to Respond to the [22] Motion Local Rule 7(b)(3)(E) provides that “[i]f a party fails to respond to any motion, other than a dispositive motion, within the time allotted, the court may grant the motion as unopposed.” L. U. Civ. R. 7(b)(3)(E). While Plaintiff filed a [27] Response titled “Plaintiff's Response to Defendants[‘s] Motion to Strike Expert Designation and Motion to Compel Discovery,” it does not include any substantive discussion of the [22] Motion. Thus, the [22] Motion is subject to being granted not only on the merits, but also as unopposed under Local Rule 7(b)(3)(E). III. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the [22] Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses and Initial Disclosures filed by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is GRANTED. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED that, Plaintiff Michael Scott Foster must provide discovery responses – without objections, except for attorney-privilege and work product related objections– no later than March 23, 2023. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED that, an amended case management order will be entered resetting Defendant's expert designation deadline and all subsequent deadlines. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 13th day of March 2023.