Otterness v. Andersen Windows Corporation

Background

Einar J. Otterness represented himself in the case. Andersen Windows Corporation moved to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for documents that it had first served on February 27, 2018. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Otterness generally had 30 days to respond.

Otterness did not respond within that period. Andersen followed up several times between April and June. At a later pretrial scheduling conference, Otterness gave Andersen a disc containing various documents, but he still had not answered the discovery requests. Andersen then resent the requests and asked Otterness to respond by September 1, 2018. Otterness had not responded by the time of the hearing and did not file a written response to the motion to compel.

Rulings

The court stated that Otterness’s self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the discovery rules. It granted Andersen’s Motion to Compel and ordered Otterness to respond fully to Andersen’s first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents on or before November 1, 2018.

The court warned that failure to comply with the order or other prior consistent orders could result in sanctions. The listed possible remedies included costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, and default judgment.

At the hearing, Otterness also orally requested appointment of counsel. The court denied that motion without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar a later request. The order did not resolve the underlying claims against the defendants.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order because it decided a discovery motion and a request for appointed counsel rather than the merits of the lawsuit.