Leser v. Indianapolis Public Schools
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
May 13, 2019
DEBORAH L LESER, Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARY ANN SULLIVAN, Individually and in her Official Capacity, SAM ODLE, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LANIER ECHOLS, Individually and in her Official Capacity, MICHAEL O'CONNOR, Individually and in his Official Capacity, GAYLE COSBY, Individually and in her Official Capacity, KELLY BENTLEY, Individually and in her Official Capacity, DIANE ARNOLD, Individually and in her Official Capacity, LEWIS D. FEREBEE, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LE BOLER, Individually and in her Official Capacity, WANDA LEGRAND, Individually and in her Official Capacity, LELA TINA HESTER, Individually and in her Official Capacity, Defendants.
ORDER
Doris
L. Pryor United States Magistrate Judge
This
matter comes before the Court on the Defendant Indianapolis
Public Schools' Motion to Compel and Request for Attorney
Fees (Dkt. 214)[1]. The motion was referred to the
Undersigned for ruling and, for the reasons that follow, is
hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
I.
Background
For the
purposes of this Order, the Court assumes familiarity with
the underlying facts of this case. On April 24, 2019, the
parties participated in a telephonic status conference with
the Undersigned. During this call, the Plaintiff expressed
concerns that the Defendants were improperly designating
certain documents as confidential, and the Defendants
expressed concerns that the Plaintiff was improperly
withholding certain documents from production. With the
discovery deadline fast approaching, the Court discussed an
expedited briefing schedule for the parties' imminent
motions to compel. The Plaintiff and Defendant[2] filed their
respective Motions to Compel on April 26, 2019, their
responses on May 1, 2019, and their replies on May 3, 2019.
In the
Defendant's instant Motion to Compel, it requests that
the Court compel the Plaintiff to produce certain information
and documents. Defendant IPS also requests its reasonable
attorneys' fees for having to pursue this motion. The
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel was discussed in a separate
order. [Dkt. 228.]
II.
Legal Standard
In
discovery, parties are generally entitled to “obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Privileged matter,
however, may be withheld. S.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1; Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(5)(A). If a party believes that material has been
improperly withheld, the party may move for the Court to
compel production. Id.
The
party opposing a motion to compel has the burden to show the
discovery requests are improper and to explain
precisely why its objections are proper given the
broad and liberal construction of the federal discovery
rules. In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Inc. Oct.
31, 1994, 172 F.R.D. 295, 307 (N.D. Ill. 1997);
Cunningham v. Smithkline Beecham, 255 F.R.D 474, 478
(N.D. Ind. 2009).
General
objections to discovery requests that merely recite
boilerplate language without explanation do not meet this
burden, and courts within the Seventh Circuit consistently
overrule them or entirely disregard such objections. See
Novelty, Inc. v. Mountain View Mktg., Inc., 265 F.R.D.
370, 375 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (“‘general
objections' made without elaboration, whether placed in a
separate section or repeated by rote in response to each
requested category, are not ‘objections' at all-and
will not be considered”); Burkybile v. Mitsubishi
Motors Corp., 2006 WL 2325506, at *9 (N.D. Ill.
2006) (overruling boilerplate objections made generally and
without elaboration).
III.
Discussion
The
Defendant submitted the following discovery requests to the
Plaintiff on January 23, 2019:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Did Leser (including
Leser's counsel or any agent thereof) communicate in any
way with an employee, agent or representative of any print,
television, radio, or online media concerning any of the
matters alleged in ther [sic] lawsuit, the termination of
Leser's employment with IPS, or all proceedings related
thereto? If so, please:
• identify who communicated the information;
• provide a detailed description of what was
...