United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
SIERRA D. WEAVER, as Administratrix for the Estate of Tracie P. Weaver, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD STRINGER, Sheriff of Washington County, et al., Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER
KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This
action is before the Court on the Plaintiff's
“Renewed Motion to Compel Defendant's Production of
Discovery” (Doc. 39), and the Plaintiff's
“Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Second
Discovery Requsts [sic] to Defendants Richard Stringer,
Arthur Ray Busby and Emil Delarosa, Jr., and Plaintiff's
First Discovery Requests to Defendants Tina Sullivan and
Anthony Hinson” (Doc. 48), as supplemented (Docs. 53,
54). Both motions have been fully briefed (see Docs.
42, 43, 45, 50), and on November 30, 2018, the undersigned
held a hearing with counsel for the parties on the motions.
Upon
consideration, it is ORDERED that the
Plaintiff's motions to compel (Docs. 39, 48, 53, 54) are
GRANTED in part and are MOOT in
part, as follows:[1]
1. The Defendants must supplement their Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures by providing the
Plaintiff with the home telephone numbers and home
addresses, if known, of all non-party witnesses
disclosed under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i).
2. Defendant Tina Sullivan is ORDERED to
supplement the following of her responses to the
Plaintiff's first discovery requests (Doc. 54-1 at 1 -
14) in accordance with the Court's instructions given on
the record at the November 30th motions hearing:
Responses 1 (by providing home phone numbers), 2, 5
(including subparts (a) & (b)), 6 (including subparts (a)
& (b)), 7 (excluding subpart (a)), 8 (including subparts
(a) & (b)), 9 (including subpart (a)), and 10 (including
subpart (a)).
3. Defendant Arthur Ray Busby is ORDERED to
supplement the following of his responses to the
Plaintiff's second discovery requests (Doc. 54-1 at 15 -
29) in accordance with the Court's instructions given on
the record at the November 30th motions hearing:
Responses 2, 3 (including subparts (a) & (b)), 4
(including subparts (a) & (b)), 5(a), 5(b), 6 (including
subparts (a) & (b)), 8 (including subparts (a) &
(b)), 9 (including subpart (a)), 10 (including subpart (a)),
16 (including subpart (a)), 17 (including subpart (a)), and
18 (including subpart (a)).
4. Defendant Emil Delarosa, Jr. (a/k/a Junior Delarosa) is
ORDERED to supplement the following of his
responses to the Plaintiff's second discovery requests
(Doc. 54-1 at 37 - 51) in accordance with the Court's
instructions given on the record at the November
30th motions hearing: Responses 1 (by providing
home phone numbers), 5 (including subparts (a) & (b)), 6
(including subparts (a) & (b)), 7 (including subpart
(a)), 8 (including subparts (a) & (b)), 9 (including
subpart (a)), and 10 (including subpart (a)).
5. Defendant Anthony Hinson is ORDERED to
supplement the following of his responses to the
Plaintiff's first discovery requests (Doc. 54-1 at 52 -
65) in accordance with the Court's instructions given on
the record at the November 30th motions hearing:
Responses 1 (by providing home phone numbers), 2, 5
(including subpart (b) but excluding subpart (a)), 6
(including subparts (a) & (b)), 7 (including subpart
(a)), 8 (including subparts (a) & (b)), and 10(a).
6. Defendant Richard Stringer is ORDERED
to (i) specifically respond to each of the Plaintiff's
Interrogatories in a testimonial manner as required by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (ii) respond to each of
the Plaintiff's Requests for Production by identifying
the Bates Number of the document(s) to which Stringer is
referring in response to that specific Request for
Production. A general referral to all produced documents in
response to any specific Interrogatory and/or Request for
Production is unsatisfactory.
7. The Plaintiff's motions to compel are otherwise
MOOT due to the Defendants' production
of responsive material after the motions were filed.
The
Plaintiff's request, made on the record at the November
30th hearing, that the Court deem waived all of
the Defendants' objections to the Plaintiff's
discovery requests, as a sanction for their deficient
responses, is DENIED, without prejudice to
the Plaintiff's ability to request such relief again as
discovery continues, if appropriate.
Additionally,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g), every discovery
response or objection “must be signed by at least one
attorney of record in the attorney's own name…and
must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and
telephone number.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(1). Only if a
party is “unrepresented” is the party to
“personally” sign a discovery response or
objection. Id. Here, the discovery responses of
counseled Defendants Sullivan, Busby, Delarosa, and Hinson,
have not been signed by one of their attorneys of record,
only by those Defendants personally. Those Defendants are
ORDERED to serve amended discovery responses
signed by at least one of their attorneys of record.
The
Defendants shall serve the Plaintiff with amended discovery
responses in compliance with the foregoing directives, and
file notice certifying same with the Court, no ...