Legal Summary: Wells v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Wells v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
No. 4:04-CV-0155-HLM (N.D. Ga. 2008)
Our client served Unum Life Insurance with Interrogatories and Requests for Production, to which Unum did not formally respond or object. The Plaintiff also noticed depositions of Defendants’ representatives for April 18, 2008. We requested that Unum’s counsel offer times to hold depositions, but Unum never responded.
On April 17, 2008, we wrote a letter to Unum stating that we had not received any responses from our Interrogatories and Requests for Production notice sent on March 14, 2008. Plaintiff continued, writing that this was a “good faith effort to obtain meaningful responses and answers to this discovery.” We had already postponed depositions of Unum employees at Unum’s request. We requested the written discovery as well as dates on which Unum employees could be deposed. The court ruled that the Defendants had “waived any objections to those discovery requests by their failure to respond.”
On May 22, 2008, we wrote a third letter to Unum’s counsel requesting a response to plaintiff’s discovery as well as letters providing times for depositions. Despite sending the discovery on March 14, 2008, Unum still had not responded nor offered times for depositions. We included our own proposed scheduling order as well as a notice to the court indicating that the order had been forwarded.
The court warned Unum’s counsel on August 28, 2008, stating that “If Defendants fail to file their response as directed in this Order, the Court will grant the Motion to Compel as unopposed. including Plaintiff’s request that the Court impose sanctions against Defendants.” The court decided that Unum’s response was due by September 2, 2008. Unum failed to file the response by that deadline.
The court ordered Unum’s counsel to serve responses to our Interrogatories and Requests for Production within 10 days. The court also ordered that the Defendants arrange times for depositions with our counsel within forty-five days.
Plaintiff also argued that Unum should cover their attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the Motion to Compel. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) states, in relevant part:
“If the motion is granted… the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party… whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. But, the court must not order this payment if:
(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified, or
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
The court determined that there was no reason to believe that Unum’s failure to respond to our Interrogatories and Requests for Production was “substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust,” allowing Plaintiff to request coverage of their fees and expenses. The Defendants were granted the chance to respond within 10 days as an “opportunity to be heard” on why they should not be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s expenses.
The court granted our Motion to Compel, ordering the Defendants to provide responses to our Interrogatories and Requests for Production within ten days. Additionally, Unum’s counsel was instructed to confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to determine and arrange deposition times within forty-five days. The court ordered Plaintiff to submit proof within ten days that their expenses “incurred in connection with filing the Motion to Compel.”
