Rosenstiel v. McDonald
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:23-cv-01876
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Rosenstiel v. McDonald, Magistrate Judge Leung granted Rosenstiel’s motion to compel discovery and ordered McDonald to respond and bear reasonable expenses.
John Paul McDonald must provide the ordered discovery and may owe Michael Rosenstiel reasonable expenses and attorney fees. Rosenstiel must document the requested expenses, and McDonald may object to the amounts.
What happened
In Rosenstiel v. McDonald, Michael Rosenstiel asked the court to require John Paul McDonald to answer interrogatories and produce documents about Rosenstiel’s recently permitted punitive-damages claim. McDonald had not responded to the discovery requests or the motion to compel.
The court granted the motion. It ordered McDonald to provide signed interrogatory answers and all responsive documents and electronically stored information by September 6, 2024. The court also ruled that McDonald had waived objections to the discovery requests because he did not respond on time.
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ordered McDonald, but not McDonald’s former attorney, to bear Rosenstiel’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, for bringing the motion. Rosenstiel had to submit an affidavit describing those expenses by September 6, and McDonald could respond by September 20.
The detailed version
- Rosenstiel v. McDonald · No. 0:23-cv-01876
- Nancy Brasel
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Michael Rosenstiel moved to compel John Paul McDonald to respond to interrogatories and requests for production concerning Rosenstiel’s recently permitted punitive-damages claim. Rosenstiel served the discovery requests on May 9, 2024. McDonald did not respond, and he also did not respond to this second motion to compel. Rosenstiel appeared through attorney Aaron Ponce at a July 25, 2024 hearing. McDonald did not appear, although his former attorney, Earl Gray, attended without participating in the response to the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 generally require responses to interrogatories and document requests within 30 days. Rule 37 permits a party to seek an order compelling a response when the other party fails to answer or produce documents. The court also explained that untimely objections may be waived, absent good cause.
The court found that McDonald had “utterly failed” to respond and had more than two months to do so. It therefore ruled that any objections to the discovery requests were waived.
Ruling
The court granted Rosenstiel’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. It ordered McDonald, by September 6, 2024, to provide signed answers to Rosenstiel’s interrogatories regarding punitive damages and all responsive documents and electronically stored information concerning the related requests for production.
The court also ordered McDonald, but not his former attorney, to bear Rosenstiel’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in bringing the motion. Rosenstiel had to file an affidavit by September 6 stating the reasonable time spent, requested hourly rate, expenses, and other relevant facts. McDonald could file objections to the requested amounts by September 20.
The court warned that failure to comply could be treated as contempt of court and could lead to sanctions or other remedies, including costs, fees, waiver of objections, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, partial or complete dismissal with prejudice, or partial or complete default judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.