The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEANNE MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 24-CV-01847-SPM
SUTTNER ENTERPRISES, LLC &
GREGORY P. SUTTNER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for consideration of two Motions to Compel:
one filed by Defendant Gregory P. Suttner (Doc. 33) and one filed by Defendant
Suttner Enterprises, LLC (Doc. 34).1 Having been fully informed of the issues
presented, both Motions to Compel are DENIED.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury case involving a vehicular collision that occurred in
Mississippi Township between Defendant Gregory Suttner’s 2018 Ford F350 (bearing
the name of Defendant Suttner Enterprises, LLC) and Plaintiff Deanne Mitchell’s
2016 Honda Accord. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff Mitchell alleges that Defendant Suttner’s
truck struck her driver’s side door when she attempted a left-hand turn onto Division
Road from US-67 Northbound. (See id., ¶¶ 35–41). Plaintiff Mitchell’s Complaint was
filed on August 7, 2024 and alleges seven causes of action against the Defendants,
1 Both Motions to Compel were erroneously filed on CM/ECF as motions for summary judgment. This
was corrected by the Clerk of Court. (See Docs. 33, 34, 35).
including direct negligence against both defendants (Counts I and V), statutory
employment liability (Count II), vicarious liability (Count III), independent
negligence (Count IV), direct negligence based upon negligent training (Count VI),
and direct negligence based upon negligent supervision (Count VII). (See id., ¶¶ 50–
120). She seeks compensatory damages for $35,500 worth of medical bills as well as
punitive damages. (See id.). The Defendants filed an answer on February 6, 2025.
(See Doc. 20).
This case entered discovery on February 25, 2025. (See Doc. 29). It is set for a
presumptive trial month of March 2026. (See Doc. 27). The instant Motions were filed
on June 24, 2025. (See Docs. 33, 34).2 Plaintiff Mitchell responded on July 14, 2025.
(See Docs. 38, 39, 40).
APPLICABLE LAW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to obtain
discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need
not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. In addition to being relevant,
the discovery sought must be proportional to the needs of the case, “considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
2 Curiously, Defendants filed two separate Motions to Compel, one for each named Defendant, even
though the same counsel of record represents both Defendants.
discovery outweighs its likely benefits.” Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns
Corp., 365 F. Supp. 3d 916, 924 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) permits a party to “move for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery” provided that the motion includes “a certification
that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or
party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action.” This certification is also required by Local Rule 26.1(c)(2) and the Court’s
Case Management Procedures. Rule 37(b) provides that failure to comply with a
discovery order issued by the court is a sanctionable offense, with potential sanctions
including dismissal of the action in whole or in part, default judgment, or holding a
party in contempt of court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
ANALYSIS
I. Defendant Gregory Suttner’s Motion (Doc. 33)
Defendant Suttner argues that “Plaintiff failed to sufficiently answer, or
otherwise improperly objected to, Nos. 3, 5, 11, 12, 17, 22, and 24 of Defendant
Gregory Suttner’s Interrogatories, and to Nos. 6, 13, 24, 26, and 30 of Defendant
Gregory Suttner’s Requests for Production.” (Doc. 33, p. 1 (citing id., Exs. B, C)). He
argues that Plaintiff’s objections to Interrogatories Nos. 11, 12, 17, and Request for
Production 6 were “boilerplate” in claiming that his requests were “vague and overly
broad.” (Id., p. 2). His argument is that he is entitled to the requested medical
information because Plaintiff has placed her medical condition in controversy. (Id., p.
3 (quoting Brown v. Chapman, 2006 WL 2038596 (S.D. Ill. 2006))). Regarding
Interrogatories Nos. 3, 5, and 24 and Requests Nos. 13, 26, and 30, Suttner argues
that Plaintiff’s claim that these are protected by the work produce doctrine is
unavailing. (Id., p. 4). He argues that the information he seeks is “merely factual”
and, thus, not protected and that Plaintiff’s failure a privilege log waived any
objections. (Id.).
In response, Plaintiff argues that her supplemented responses render
Suttner’s objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, 11, 12, 17, 22, and 24(a), (b) and Requests
for Production 6, 13, 24 and 30 moot. (See Doc. 39 (citing id., Exs. 1, 2)). Suttner did
not file a reply or otherwise dispute this contention. Therefore, Defendant Suttner’s
Motion to Compel shall be deemed to be moot with respect to Interrogatories 3, 5, 11,
12, 17, 22, and 24(a), (b) and Requests for Production 6, 13, 24 and 30.
This leaves Interrogatory 24(c) and (d) and Request for Production 26.
Interrogatory 24(c) and (d) request: “(c) All witnesses who may be called at trial who
have information regarding the events or damages which are the subject of the
Petition/Complaint; and (d) For any witness identified above state the general
topic/nature of their knowledge and anticipated testimony.” (Doc. 33, Ex. B, p. 12).
Request for Production 26 seeks “[a]ll correspondence in you or your attorney’s
possession with 3rd parties (excluding experts or agents employed or consulted with
by you or your attorneys in this case) relating to the incident, events or damages
which are the subject of your Complaint.” (Id., Ex. C, p. 7). Plaintiff states that she
stands by her objections to Interrogatory 24(c) and (d) because the requested
information involves trial strategy and counsel’s mental impression, not factual
discovery. (Doc. 39, p. 3). She also stands by her objections to Request for Production
26, as she reads it to request “a privilege log of counsel’s entire correspondence file.”
(Id., p. 4).
Regarding the disputed Interrogatory, Mitchell has already provided
Defendants with information on those who have knowledge of the accident as
requested in No. 24(a) and (b). Mitchell is not required to provide Defendants with
her witness list at this point in litigation; such information will be provided in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). See Eastman v. Santos, No.
18-CV-602-SMY-RJD, 2019 WL 11718732, at *14 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2019) (citing FED.
R. CIV. P. 26(a)(3)). With respect to the disputed Request for Production, Plaintiff
Mitchell is correct that she is not required to provide the Defendants with her entire
correspondence file. Defendants will be provided the opportunity to review expert
reports in accordance with Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(D). Thus, Plaintiff Mitchell’s
objections are sustained and Defendant Suttner’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 33) shall be
denied.
II. Defendant Suttner Enterprises, LLC’s Motion (Doc. 34)
Suttner Enterprises makes similar arguments regarding Plaintiff Mitchell’s
responses to their separate written discovery requests, arguing that “Plaintiff’s
boilerplate work product objections to Defendant’s First Interrogatories and Requests
for Production have deprived Defendant of factual information it is entitled to
through discovery” and that “Plaintiff’s claims of privilege under attorney work
product doctrine are improper because Defendant has not requested information or
documentation pertaining to Plaintiff’s counsel’s thought processes or prepared
specifically for litigation.” (Doc. 34, p. 3).
In response, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant Suttner Enterprises has
essentially propounded the same interrogatories and requests to each of Plaintiff’s
theories of negligence thereby triggering what is essentially the same objection to
each.” (Doc. 38, p. 1). She notes that “Defendant Suttner Enterprises’ motion does not
specifically address any specific request or interrogatory or request for production,
but rather just generally addresses Plaintiff’s objection.” (Id., p. 2). She insists that
“Plaintiff herself did not draft the complaint and she cannot personally answer nor
sign a verification as to truthfulness of said answers as she has no personal
knowledge” and that “[t]o force Plaintiff to answer these interrogatories and sign a
verification means that such would subject her to cross-examination of such at both
deposition and trial on issues and answers that she cannot truthfully answer.” (Id.).
plaintiff argues that Defendant seeks her mental impressions and intangible work
product. (See id., pp. 2–4). In the alternative, she requests to be permitted to respond
to Suttner Enterprises’ written discovery requests at the end of the discovery window.
(Id., p. 3 (citing Ziemack v. Centel Corp., No. 92 C 3551, 1995 WL 729295, at *2 (N.D.
Ill. Dec. 7, 1995))).
Suttner Enterprises’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production request “all
facts” and “all documents” related to Plaintiff’s legal theories. (See Doc. 34, Exs. B,
C). Plaintiff insists that the information requested is protected by the work product
doctrine and that the discovery requests are overly broad. (See Doc. 38, pp. 2–3). To
the extent that Plaintiff argues that the requested information is protected by the
work product doctrine, this objection is improperly raised in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(5), which requires the party making the objection to
“describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not
produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information
itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” See Boyd
v. Tornier, Inc., No. 07-751 MJR, 2008 WL 2691727, at *1 (S.D. Ill. June 30, 2008)
(“Plaintiffs also object that these interrogatories ‘seek to invade the attorney work
product doctrine.’ That objection is waived as it was not properly raised.” (citing FED.
R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)).
Regarding the extent to which she claims that the Interrogatories and
Requests for Production are overly broad, she cites Sioux Steel Co. v. Prairie Land
Millwright Servs., Inc., No. 16 C 2212, 2021 WL 4967627, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2021)
for the proposition that Suttner Enterprises’ contention interrogatories are too broad.
(Doc. 38, p. 3 (citing the same)). However, the Defendants in that case were permitted
to serve narrower written discovery. See Sioux Steel Co., 2021 WL 4967627, at *1.
The same is appropriate here, as this Court holds that Suttner Enterprises’ written
discovery requests seeking “all facts” and “all documents” are overly broad. Plaintiff’s
objection is sustained and Suttner Enterprises’ Motion to Compel shall be denied.
However, Suttner Enterprises may serve Plaintiff with narrower
interrogatories focusing on principal facts and support and Plaintiff shall provide the
appropriate responses. See Beesley v. Int’l Paper Co., No. CIV.06-703-DRH, 2008 WL
3992686, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2008) (“Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories on
the First Amended Complaint are modified by deleting the phrase ‘Describe each fact
and identify each document that relates to your contention,’ and substituting the
phrase, ‘State the factual basis for and identify each document which principally
supports your contention’ in each interrogatory.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court sustains Plaintiff Mitchell’s
objections to Defendants’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Both Motions
to Compel (Docs. 33, 34) are DENIED. Defendant Suttner Enterprises shall serve
Plaintiff Mitchell with revised Interrogatories and Requests for Production as
discussed above no later than August 18, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 28, 2025
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge