Thompson v. Experian

Background

This order concerns a joint discovery letter brief involving eight requests by pro se plaintiff Kenan Thompson. Thompson challenged Experian’s responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. He also requested a privilege log, a certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g), a 90-day extension of the discovery deadline, and sanctions under Rule 37(b).

Experian stated that it had produced 568 non-confidential documents, had attempted to use the court’s model stipulated protective order, and would produce responsive confidential documents after entry of a protective order. The parties had met and conferred on June 16, 2025, but the court found that they had not fully resolved or sufficiently narrowed the disputes through the required process.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. A party seeking discovery must show that the request meets those requirements. Parties also must identify specific objections and responses and make a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes before asking the court to intervene.

The court concluded that Thompson’s generalized complaints did not identify particular interrogatories, document requests, admissions, or responses that required judicial relief. The court also rejected the premise that Experian had to withdraw all objections. It explained that a responding party may make proper objections, although interrogatory answers generally must still provide responsive information to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to.

The court found that demanding confidential documents before entry of a stipulated protective order was procedurally incorrect. It also found that the privilege-log request was premature because the parties had not yet met and conferred about a reasonable schedule. The court noted that Experian’s assertion that it had produced no documents was contradicted by its representation that it had produced 568 documents.

Rulings on the Eight Requests

1. The request to compel amended interrogatory and document-request responses with organized, Bates-numbered production was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court ordered Experian to identify by July 25, 2025, any business records it had relied on under Rule 33(d) without identifying them by Bates number, and to supplement as additional documents were produced.

2. The request to strike boilerplate objections and deem them waived was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. The request to require a privilege log within seven days was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer promptly and in good faith about a reasonable schedule for exchanging privilege logs, with those discussions completed by July 25, 2025.

4. The request to require revised responses to requests for admission was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5. The request to require a Rule 26(g) certification of a diligent search and complete production was DENIED AS MOOT. The court explained that the signed discovery requests, responses, and objections already contain the certifications required by Rule 26(g).

7. The request to extend the discovery deadline by 90 days was DENIED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent it was directed to the undersigned judge. The court stated that requests to change the case schedule must be directed to the presiding district judge.

8. The request for Rule 37(b) sanctions was DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The court found that Thompson had not followed the procedures for presenting discovery sanctions and that the record did not show conduct approaching sanctionable behavior under Rule 37(b), which concerns failure to comply with a court order.

Additional Orders

The court ordered both parties to continue meeting and conferring in good faith and to focus on completing fact discovery. It ordered them to file a joint status report on July 28, 2025, addressing privilege logs, the stipulated protective order, document production, third-party discovery, depositions, and plans for completing fact discovery. The order resolved docket entry 40 but did not decide the merits of the underlying lawsuit.