United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MONICA A. SAGNESS, Plaintiff,
JESSE L. DUPLECHIN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the court on Defendant Jesse L.
Duplechin's Motion to Compel (Filing No. 22).
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in
part and denied in part.
a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident.
On October 31, 2016, Defendant served interrogatories and
requests for production of documents on Plaintiff. Plaintiff
provided her initial responses on December 14, 2016.
Plaintiff's responses contained several “Objections
of General Application.” (Filing No. 24-1 at CM/ECF
pp. 22-23, ¶¶ A-H). Plaintiff also raised
several objections to specific interrogatories and requests
for production. After counsel for the parties discussed
Plaintiff's objections to the discovery responses,
Plaintiff served Amended Answers. The “Objections of
General Application” and other specific objections to
certain interrogatories and requests for production remained
in Plaintiff's Amended Answers.
for the parties again conferred over Defendant's
continuing concerns about the nature of Plaintiff's
stated objections. Specifically, Defendant requested that
Plaintiff withdraw her general objections and withdraw any
objections for interrogatories and requests for production
for which Plaintiff provided answers over objections. The
parties then participated in a telephonic conference before
the undersigned Magistrate Judge in an attempt to settle the
discovery dispute. No resolution was reached and Defendant
subsequently filed a motion to compel. (Filing No.
requests an order granting the following relief:
1) Striking the Plaintiff's “Objections of General
2) Overruling the Plaintiff's relevance objection to
Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 12, and Request for Production Nos.
10, 14, and 19;
3) Overruling the Plaintiff's “Vagueness and
Burdensome Objection” to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 13, and
22, and Request for Production No. 14;
4) Overruling the Plaintiff's “Legal Conclusion
Objection” to Interrogatory No. 2;
5) Overruling the Plaintiff's “Defendant's
Possession Objection” to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 18,
and Request for Production Nos. 18 and 19;
6) Ordering the Plaintiff to serve a privilege log for each
of her “Attorney Work Product/Attorney-Client Privilege
Objections” by a date deemed reasonable by the Court,
such log to identify the date of the communication or
tangible thing, document type (if applicable), author,
recipient(s), and subject; and 7) Ordering that Defendant is
entitled to recover his reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees in the amount of $500.00, under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended
on December 1, 2015. The scope of permissible discovery is
defined as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the party's access to relevant
information, the party's resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, ...