Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC

Background

Plaintiff moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to compel discovery from DRA Logistics Corp. and 130 St. Equities LLC, identified in the order as the “Workforce Defendants.” The motion sought production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and compliant responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff requested production by February 28, 2025.

Plaintiff served the discovery requests on December 20, 2024. After two agreed extensions, the response deadline was February 19, 2025. On that date, the Workforce Defendants served responses and objections to the document requests. Their responses generally used boilerplate objections asserting that the requests were overly broad, sought irrelevant or unnecessary information, or were not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant or admissible evidence. The Workforce Defendants did not produce documents with those responses.

The Workforce Defendants answered ten interrogatories, but did not answer the other five beyond making boilerplate objections. Their interrogatory responses were not verified, meaning they were not provided under oath and signed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(B) requires a party responding to a document request either to permit the requested inspection or to state specific grounds and reasons for an objection. The court described unsupported objections about burden, overbreadth, and relevance—when no documents are produced—as discovery abuse. The court also explained that failing to respond or object to a discovery request on time waives objections that otherwise might have been available.

The court found that the Workforce Defendants’ interrogatory responses did not comply with Rule 33 because they were not verified. Rule 33 requires each interrogatory to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless an objection is made.

The Workforce Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s letter-motion violated the Local Rules and the judge’s individual practices. The court rejected that argument. It found that Plaintiff had certified an attempt to meet and confer and had provided related correspondence. The court explained that the applicable rules required a good-faith effort to confer, but did not allow a party to avoid a motion to compel by refusing to engage with opposing counsel.

Order and Disposition

The court granted the motion in part, as modified. DRA Logistics Corp. and 130 St. Equities LLC were ordered to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents no later than March 4, 2025. They were also ordered to serve verified and responsive answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories by that date.

The court further ruled that the Workforce Defendants waived their objections by failing to timely respond to the document requests and interrogatories. The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for the motion, Dkt. No. 38. Judge Liman signed the order on February 26, 2025.