United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
NORETTA F. BOYD, Plaintiff,
JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY THE WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT FACILITY 'THE NEW WISHARD PROJECT', Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF
TO PRODUCE DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND APPEAR FOR
Baker United States Magistrate Judge.
Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County moves to
compel Plaintiff Noretta F. Boyd to produce discovery
responses and appear for a deposition. [Filing No. 96.] HHC
asserts that Boyd refused to respond to a large number of
discovery requests and that she failed to appear for her
deposition on May 26, 2017. [Id., at ECF p. 2-3.]
Boyd's primary contention is that her responses and
attendance are unnecessary because she already provided this
information at her deposition in a related case. [Filing No.
98, at ECF p. 2.]
May 16, 2017, status conference, the Court told Boyd that she
could not rely on discovery provided in a separate case and
that she must properly respond to HHC's discovery
requests and provide a deposition. The Court further
instructed the parties that they may file formal discovery
motions only after attempting in good faith to resolve any
lingering discovery disputes. HHC's motion followed.
may file a motion to compel a required disclosure upon
“evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or
response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). A required disclosure
includes any information that a party may use to support its
claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A). “For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant” to
the issues of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Thus,
the scope of discovery should be broad in order to aid in the
search for truth.” Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire
Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
Ultimately, this Court has “broad discretion over
discovery matters.” Kuttner v. Zaruba, 819
F.3d 970, 974 (7th Cir. 2016).
Request for Boyd's Discovery
HHC asks the Court to compel the following discovery from
Boyd: production of documents Nos. 1-5, 8-10, 12-18, 21,
23-34; answers to interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8-12, 14, 16-19;
and Boyd's deposition. Boyd contends that she already
provided this information in a prior case. Boyd points to a
host of evidentiary and procedural rules that, although
address relying on information from a past case, do not stand
for this contention.
undisputed that Boyd gave an incomplete disclosure. The Court
previously found HHC's discovery requests are reasonable.
HHC chronicles how the parties tried in good faith to work
out the discovery dispute before HHC filed this motion. HHC
has a right to Boyd's discovery responses and deposition
in this case, and the rules Boyd cites in her objections are
not persuasive. Therefore, Boyd must produce requested
discovery and appear for her deposition.
Requests for Instruction
HHC asks the Court to instruct Boyd that her failure to
attend and participate reasonably in her deposition or
properly respond to discovery will result in dismissal of
this matter under Rule 37(d). HHC also requests that the
Court order Boyd to pay reasonable expenses incurred for
failing to appear at the May 26, 2017, deposition, as well as
the costs and attorney's fees associated with HHC's
motion to compel.
correct that Rule 37(d)(3) allows the Court to dismiss this
action as a sanction against Boyd for failing to attend her
own deposition or serve proper responses. While doing so is
not mandatory, the Court agrees that Boyd's failure to
appear for her deposition and respond to discovery could
potentially result in dismissal of the matter.
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) states that when a court grants a motion to
compel, the Court “must require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney
advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including
attorney's fees.” However, the Court must not order
this payment if doing so would be unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(5)(A)(iii). Rule 37(d)(3) also mandates that when a
party fails to attend her own deposition or serve answers to
interrogatories, the Court must require her to pay the