United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
C. Smith Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel. (Doc. 34). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's
Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. Defendants are DIRECTED to
respond, in accordance with this Opinion and Order, to
Plaintiff's discovery requests no later than August 23,
2019. If Defendants have failed to do so by that date,
Plaintiff may file a notice with the Court, and the Court
will consider Plaintiff's request that its requests for
admission be deemed admitted, as well as its request for
costs and fees.
4, 2019, Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendants,
including requests for interrogatories, document production,
and admissions. (See Doc. 34-1). Defendant Benny L.
Smith responded to these requests on June 13, 2019.
(Id., ¶ 4. As to each and every one of
Plaintiff's requests for admissions, interrogatories, and
the production of documents, Defendant Smith wrote
“Objection.” (Id.). Moreover, Defendant
Smith failed to produce any documents. (Id.). On
June 18, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Smith
about these deficient discovery responses. (Id.,
¶ 5). Defendant Smith did not respond but rather filed
an updated set of document production with additional
objections, including assertions that this Court has no
jurisdiction over him, an example of which is provided below:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons who assisted or
supplied information used in answering these Discovery
OBJECTION: 'ADVERSE CLAIMS
I am Bonnie Lee Bey, Delia Re* Bey heir unconditional. Stop
all negotiation in this matter pending my right and intent of
resending my signature monogram off all instruments that was
used in any transaction or security by (Ronald Fans) Glen
Mussina, President and Chief Executive, doing business as
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et alia, who alleged to be holder
in due course in which he is not. 1 want the promissory note
produced. I want note back. 1 want all profits that was
generated by it. Meanwhile there was a little extra on it
take that and offset the alleged debt on the property right
(Doc. 32 at 1).
16, 2019, the Undersigned held a status conference to discuss
the parties' discovery obligations in this case. (Doc.
35). The Court informed the parties that discovery in this
case would proceed in its normal course and directed
Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel by July
26, 2019. (Id.). Defendants have not filed a
response, and the deadline to do so has now expired.
26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
“[p]arties may 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). Moreover, Rule 37 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for a motion to
compel discovery when a party fails to answer interrogatories
submitted under Rule 33 or to provide proper responses to
requests for production of documents under Rule 34.
See Fed. R Civ. P. 37(a)(1), (3).
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's discovery requests and
finds that they appropriately seek nonprivileged matter,
relevant to Plaintiff's claim or defense, and
proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, upon review of Defendants'
responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Court
finds they do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. For example, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
36(a)(4), a party responding to a request for admission must
admit, deny, or state in detail why he cannot truthfully
admit or deny. Defendants' objections do not comport with
this rule. Consequently, the Court compels Defendants to