Brian BENSON, et al. v. LIBERTY PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-178-SDD-RLB United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana Signed September 18, 2023 Counsel Anthony David Irpino, Kacie Faye Gray, Irpino, Avin & Hawkins Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, for Brian Benson, et al. H. Minor Pipes III, Patrick J. Lorio, Christopher W. Smith, Pipes Miles Beckman, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Liberty Personal Insurance Company. Bourgeois Jr., Richard L., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel filed on August 24, 2023. (R. Doc. 12). The deadline for filing an opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the motion is unopposed. I. Background Brian Benson and Kaley Benson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action in State court to obtain recovery under an insurance policy issued by Liberty Personal Insurance Company (“Defendant”). (R. Doc. 1-2 at 10-17). Defendant removed the action, asserting that this Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (R. Doc. 1). Defendant represents that it served Plaintiffs “with interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission” on May 26, 2023. (R. Doc. 12 at 1). Defendant submits an email that appears to have attached the written discovery at issue. (R. Doc. 12-2). The actual discovery requests, however, are not provided. On June 26, 2023, Plaintiffs responded to each of the 31 requests for admission at issue follows: Objection. Upon reasonable inquiry, Plaintiffs lack the knowledge and/or information sufficient to respond to this request, as Defendant has not yet produced its claims file. Notwithstanding said objection, Plaintiffs respond as follows: DENIED. (R. Doc. 12-4). Plaintiff did not provide any responses to the interrogatories or requests for production. On July 9, 2023, Defendant responded that given that Plaintiffs “should have some information on the claim, especially in the form of communications with Liberty, checks and payments received, communications with the public adjuster, inspections performed at the property, or damages claimed.” (R. Doc. 12-5 at 1). Defendant also noted that the responses to the interrogatories and requests for production were still outstanding, and set a discovery conference to discuss these issues. (R. Doc 12-5 at 1). On July 17, 2023, the parties held a discovery conference, with defense counsel confirming that Plaintiffs’ counsel needed additional time to review the claim file, and that while defense counsel would work on producing a “redacted claim file,” Plaintiffs’ counsel would work on obtaining the public adjuster's file. (R. Doc. 12-6). It is unclear whether the parties stipulated to a specific extended deadline to provide discovery responses. Defense counsel simply states: “I'll check back in 30 days from now.” (R. Doc. 12-6 at 1). The attached Rule 37 certificate only certifies that the parties held a telephone conference on July 17, 2023 “to address the issues raised in the motion.” (R. Doc. 12 at 3). It appears that Defendant produced the redacted claims file on August 9, 2023 notwithstanding the absence of any formal discovery requests. (R. Doc. 12-7; see R. Doc. 12-1 at 2). Defendant represents, however, that Plaintiffs still have not provided any responses to the interrogatories and requests for production as of the filing of the Motion to Compel on August 24, 2023. (R. Doc. 12-1 at 3). Through the instant Motion to Compel, Defendant seeks the following relief: “(i) order the Bensons to produce responses to Liberty's interrogatories and requests for [production][1] within five (5) business days and (ii) deem Liberty's requests for admission admitted” and “(iii) award Liberty attorneys’ fees and reasonable expenses incurred in filing the motion pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C).” (R. Doc. 12-1 at 5). Plaintiffs did not file any memorandum opposing the foregoing relief. II. Law and Analysis A. Requests for Production and Interrogatories *2 A party must respond or object to interrogatories or requests for production within 30 days after service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). This default date may be modified by stipulation between the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). If a party fails to respond fully to interrogatories or requests for production made pursuant to Rule 33 or Rule 34 in the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery may move to compel responses and for appropriate sanctions under Rule 37. An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Here, Defendant argues that the Court should compel Plaintiffs to provide responses to the served interrogatories and requests for production given that Plaintiffs failed to provide timely responses. Plaintiffs’ failure to file an opposition to the instant Motion to Compel to explain their failure to provide timely responses, even after counsel participating in a discovery conference, raises various concerns. That said, review of the Motion to Compel provides that Defendant did not comply with Local Rule 37, which requires a motion to compel to “quote verbatim” the written discovery requests and responses at issue. LR 37. Given that Plaintiffs do not appear to have responded at all to the written interrogatories and requests for production at issue, Defendant should have attached a copy of all served written discovery as an exhibit to the Motion to Compel. In the absence of the language of the written discovery in dispute, the Court cannot determine whether and to what extent the requests fall within the scope of discovery.[2] Given the absence of any opposition to this motion, the Court will require Plaintiff to provide any delinquent responses to any interrogatories and requests for production previously served by Defendant within 7 days of the date of this Order. The Court will not, however, issue a ruling at this time finding that any objections to the discovery requests have been waived. Furthermore, given that copies of the written discovery requests were not submitted with the Motion to Compel, the Court will not award any expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to these interrogatories and requests for production. B. Requests for Admission Defendants do not argue that Plaintiffs failed to provide timely objections and responses to the 31 requests for admission at issue under Rule 36(a)(3). Instead, Defendants seek an order finding that the requests for admission are “deemed admitted” for the purposes of Rule 36(a)(3) because the responses “are clearly evasive and incomplete” for the purposes of Rule 37(a)(4). (See R. Doc. 12-1 at 4). Rule 36(a)(1) provides that a party may serve written requests for admission pertaining to the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) 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)(A)-(B). In response to a request for admission, a party must admit the matter, deny the matter, or state that it cannot admit or deny the matter and provide the reason for which it is unable to respond: If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. *3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). The party may object to a request for admission other than “solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). General objections to requests for admission that are not addressed to specific requests to admissions are insufficient. See Hall v. Louisiana, No. 12-657, 2014 WL 2560579, at *1 (M.D. La. June 6, 2014). Here, Plaintiffs objected to each requests for admission on the basis the Plaintiffs lacked “the knowledge and/or information sufficient to respond to the request” given that “Defendant had not yet produced its claim file.” (See R. Doc. 12-4). Rather than state that based on this objection they could neither admit or deny the requests for production, Plaintiffs went forward with denying each of the 31 requests for production. It appears that these objections and denials were based on Plaintiffs’ counsel's lack of knowledge, as opposed to the actual Plaintiffs’ lack of knowledge. That said, the record indicates that Plaintiffs are now in possession of a redacted claims file and that Plaintiffs’ counsel have had ample opportunity to obtain amended answers directly from Plaintiffs regarding these requests for admission. Accordingly, the Court finds that the objections to the requests for admission (to the extent they are based on the lack of access to the claims file) are overruled, and that Plaintiffs must provide amended answers to the requests for admission, absent any additional objections, within 7 days of the date of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). The Court will not deem the requests admitted at this time. Plaintiffs are reminded that failure “to admit what is requested under Rule 36” may subject a party to sanctions “if the requesting party later provides a document to be genuine or the matter true.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2). As stated above, the Court finds it disconcerting that Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file any response to the instant Motion to Compel. Given the record, however, the Court will require the parties to bear their own costs with respect to the request for admissions as well. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with the body of this Order. Plaintiffs shall provide any delinquent responses to any interrogatories and requests for production previously served by Defendant within 7 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs shall also provide amended answers to the requests for admission, without further objection, within 7 days of the date of this Order. The parties shall bear their own costs. Footnotes [1] It appears that Defendants’ motion mistakenly sought an order compelling responses to “requests for admission.” [2] In contrast, Defendant provide the language of the requests for admissions at issue by submitting a copy of Plaintiffs’ responses to those requests for admissions. (See R. Doc. 12-4).