The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FANNIE BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-1069-SDD-RLB
GERALDINE CLARK, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Wright National Flood Insurance Company’s (“Wright”) Motion for
Order to Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”). (R. Doc. 46). The deadline for filing an
opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is unopposed.
On March 14, 2019, Wright served interrogatories on Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 46-2). Plaintiff
provided answers and objections on April 22, 2019. (R. Doc. 46-3). The answers were not
signed by Plaintiff and were not made under oath. The parties held a discovery conference on
May 3, 2019, during which Plaintiff objected to the interrogatories on the basis that they consist
of more than 25 subparts, but nevertheless agreed to supplement the responses. (R. Doc. 46-4 at
1). Wright represents that at the conference Plaintiff’s counsel was “asked to comply with Rule
33(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to provide verified answers to [the]
interrogatories.” (R. Doc. 46 at 1). After the conference, Wright’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s
counsel that Plaintiff “will need to verify her discovery responses.” (R. Doc. 46-5 at 1). Plaintiff
then provided amended answers and objections on May 10, 2019. (R. Doc. 46-4 at 6-61). The
amended answers were not signed by Plaintiff and were not made under oath. Wright’s counsel
reminded Plaintiff’s counsel on July 10, 2019, that Plaintiff did not sign her interrogatory
responses under oath. (R. Doc. 46-6 at 1). Wright filed the instant motion on July 16, 2019. (R.
Doc. 46).
Rule 33(b)(3) provides that “[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to,
be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3); see Dugas v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 12-02885, 2014 WL 458083, at *2 (W.D. La. Feb. 3, 2014)
(warning counsel that “verification of discovery responses is required” by Rule 33(b)(3) and
noting that “further violation of that requirement will not be tolerated). Furthermore, Rule
33(b)(5) provides that the “person who makes the answers must sign them and the attorney who
objects must sign any objections.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5). Accordingly, the Court will require
Plaintiff to sign her answers and verify her answers, under oath, to the extent she has not done
so.
The Court notes that on July 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order
seeking relief with respect to her failure to provide timely initial disclosures and a discovery
order requiring disclosures to be made and awarding fees. (R. Doc. 40). The motion and
supporting memorandum appear to address Plaintiff’s objections to the interrogatories subject to
the instant motion, but does not seek relief with respect to those interrogatories. The instant
order merely requires Plaintiff to sign and verify any answers provided. It does not address the
sufficiency of any objections raised by Plaintiff’s counsel.
Having considered the record, including the nature of the relief sought, the Court does not
find an award of expenses appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)(A). Failure to comply with
this order, however, will subject Plaintiff and her counsel to sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2).
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Wright’s Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 46) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall sign her answers to Wright’s interrogatories and verify her answers to Wright’s
interrogatories, under oath, to the extent such answers have not been signed and verified, within
7 days of the date of this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 7, 2019.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
U NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE