Evans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

MARQUITA EVANS : DOCKET NO. 2:22-cv-00864

VERSUS :

C.A.R TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL : MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a Motion to Compel [doc. 83] and Motion to Strike [doc. 85] filed by

plaintiff Marquita Evans. Defendants C.A.R. Transport, Inc., Patrick Hubbard, and National

Interstate Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) opposed both motions. A hearing on

the motions was conducted on May 28, 2026. For reasons set forth below, each motion is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Also before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [doc. 90]. The time for

response passed with none being filed, making this motion ripe for resolution. By agreement of

the parties, this motion was addressed at the hearing on May 28, 2026. For reasons set forth below,

the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

In connection with each of these motions [docs. 83, 85, 90], the respective mover requested

an award of reasonable expenses and attorney fees. For the reasons set forth below, all of these

requests are DENIED.

I.

BACKGROUND

This dispute arises from a motor vehicle accident involving plaintiff Marquita Evans and

defendant Patrick Hubbard. Doc. 32, att. 1, p. 1. In her complaint, Plaintiff claims defendants

C.A.R. Transport, Inc. (“CAR”), Hubbard’s employer at the time, and National Interstate

Insurance Company, “an insurer”, are liable for the negligence of defendant Hubbard in his

inattentiveness, failure to yield, careless operation of a motor vehicle, operation of a motor vehicle

in an unsafe manner, and failure to follow Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Doc. 3, pp.

3-4. On March 30, 2026, a Joint Liability Stipulation was entered into the record providing that

Hubbard is 100% at fault for the collision, Plaintiff is 0% at fault, and Hubbard was in the course

and scope of his employment with CAR at the time of the collision. Doc. 80.

Plaintiff now moves to compel responses to discovery requests that were propounded

months before the instant motion, dates for a myriad of depositions, and supplementation of

Defendants’ prior document productions because Plaintiff argues the original productions fail to

clearly identify to which request(s) the documents are responsive. Doc. 83, att. 2, p. 1. The

discovery requests include two sets of interrogatories and requests for production (RFP”), one sent

to CAR [doc. 83, att. 5] and one sent to Hubbard [Id. at att. 12]. Plaintiff argues compulsion is

warranted principally because Defendants’ objections to most all the requests are that discovery

regarding anything other than causation of damages and quantum of damages is irrelevant in light

of the liability stipulation. Doc. 88, p. 2. Plaintiff counters that discovery is relevant to her claims

of punitive damages, gross negligence, and negligent entrustment [doc. 83, att. 2, p. 5], but

Defendants point out that Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim was previously dismissed [doc. 16]

and Plaintiff has not asserted any claims of direct negligence (e.g., negligent entrustment, negligent

hiring, failure to train, etc.) on the part of CAR or claims of gross negligence by any defendant in

her complaint. Doc. 88, p. 9.

Plaintiff also moves this court to strike Defendants’ answers to her propounded requests

for admissions. Doc. 85. Specifically, Plaintiff argues the answers should be struck, and all

requests deemed admitted, because the answers were untimely, included boilerplate objections,

and were not answered individually, but jointly, by the Defendants. Id. at att. 2, pp. 2-3. In

response, Defendants argue the requests for admission were issued only to CAR, so they were not

improperly jointly answered, and CAR’s answers are sufficient in light of the stipulation. Doc. 89,

p. 1.

Finally, Defendants move for a protective order protecting against Plaintiff’s discovery and

deposition requests that are irrelevant to the remaining issues of causation of damages and

quantum. Doc. 90, p. 1. Specifically, Defendants request a protective order against Plaintiff’s

discovery requests that fall outside these issues and against depositions of any individuals who

have no knowledge relevant to these issues, including limiting the scope of defendant Hubbard’s

deposition to these remaining issues. Id. at att. 1, pp. 1-2. Plaintiff did not respond to this motion.

A hearing on all of these motions was held on May 28, 2026.

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) permits a party seeking discovery to move for

an order compelling disclosure of any materials requested if the other party fails to answer an

interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 or to produce documents as requested under Rule 34.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the

needs of the case . . . .”

Here, because the Joint Stipulation of Liability [doc. 80] confirms defendant Hubbard is

100% at fault and CAR is vicariously liable, because there are no direct negligence claims against

CAR in Plaintiff’s Complaint [doc. 3], and because this court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s

punitive damages claims [doc. 16], the only contested issues remaining for trial are the causation

of Plaintiff’s injuries and the extent of her damages, if any. See Harmanson v. Ryan, No. 1-15-CV-

179, 2016 WL 7212954 at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2016) (holding that because of defendants’

stipulation to liability, information regarding road tests, background information of the driver,

safety regulations, alcohol testing, and the driver’s whereabouts before the incident were

irrelevant); George v. Herrera, No. 1:18CV272-HSO-JCG, 2020 WL 13490748, at *3 (S.D. Miss.

Jan. 22, 2020) (“In light of Defendant's Stipulation of Liability and the dismissal of the punitive

damages claim, only the question of Plaintiff's actual damages remains for trial. Any evidence or

testimony pertaining to Donley's intoxication or what caused the accident is not probative of the

remaining issue for trial—Plaintiff's actual damages. . . . the Court is not persuaded that evidence

related to the cause of the accident, or any alleged gross negligence on the part of Donley, is

probative of any factual finding the jury must make.”). Thus, the court finds that discovery of any

information that does not pertain to causation of Plaintiff’s injuries and the extent of damages

suffered by her is irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this case in its current posture.

Accordingly, for this reason and the reasons stated orally on the record at the hearing, the Motion

to Compel [doc. 83] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:1

Requests to CAR:

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83] as to CAR Interrogatory Nos. 4-6, 8, 9, 11-15, 17-19, and

22 and RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4-19, 21, 23, 34-40, 47, 62, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 79-87, 89, 92-95, 97, 99-106,

108, 111-114, 117, 118, 119(d), 119(f)-(j), 119(m)-(o), 119(s)-(w), 119(z)-(ll), 120 is DENIED as

these requests seek information that is irrelevant to the remaining issues for trial, and so, also

disproportionate to the needs of the case.

1 The court used the parties’ Joint Submission Regarding Discovery Requests Still in Dispute prepared and provided

pursuant to the Notice of Motion Setting [doc. 84] to pinpoint which requests remain at issue.

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83] as to CAR Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 7, 10, 16, 20, and 21

and RFP Nos. 3, 24, 25, 33, 48, 63, 64, 67, 68, 70, 74, 90, 91, 96, 107, 115, and 116 is GRANTED

without limitation. CAR shall provide full and complete responses within the time hereafter set

forth.

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83] as to the remaining requests to CAR is GRANTED but

limited as follows:

• RFP Nos. 20, 22, 49, 50, & 98: These requests are limited to documents pertaining

to the day of the collision. CAR need not provide documents created prior to the

date of the collision.

• RFP Nos. 75 & 88: These requests are limited to documents pertaining to the

circumstances of the collision such as, inter alia, weight and configuration of the

truck/cargo, speed/braking data, force/angle/mechanics of impact, etc. CAR need

not produce documents that do not pertain to the circumstances of the collision.

• RFP Nos. 109 & 110: These requests are limited to documents pertaining to the

circumstances of the collision such as, inter alia, weight and configuration of the

truck/cargo, speed/braking data, force/angle/mechanics of impact, etc., and

pertaining only to the day of the collision. CAR need not produce documents that

do not pertain to the circumstances of the collision or documents created prior to

the date of the collision.

• RFP Nos. 119(a)-(c), (e), (k), (l), (p)-(r), (x), (y): All of these requests are limited

to documents pertaining to the day of the collision. CAR need not provide

documents created prior to the date of the collision. Additionally:

o The request in subsection (k) is further limited to documents from the on-board

computer system reports, printouts and otherwise downloadable information of any

type. CAR need not produce documents from Global Positioning Systems or

satellite tracking systems, except to the extent such documents disclose information

pertaining to the circumstances of the collision such as, inter alia, weight and

configuration of the truck/cargo, speed/braking data, force/angle/mechanics of

impact, etc.

o The request in subsection (l) is limited to documents pertaining to the circumstances

of the collision such as, inter alia, weight and configuration of the truck/cargo,

speed/braking data, force/angle/mechanics of impact, etc. CAR need not produce

documents that do not pertain to the circumstances of the collision.

Requests to Hubbard:

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83] as to Hubbard Interrogatory Nos. 4-6, 11, 12, and 14-19

and RFP Nos. 1-2, 14, 22, 25-29, 31, 32, 42, 43, 45, 47-50, and 54-59 is DENIED as these requests

seek information that is irrelevant to the remaining issues for trial, and so, also disproportionate to

the needs of this case.

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83] as to Hubbard Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 8-10, and 13 and

RFP Nos. 3-13, 16-18, 23, 24, 44, 46, 51-53 is GRANTED without limitation. Hubbard shall

provide full and complete responses within the time hereafter set forth.

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83] as to the remaining requests to Hubbard is GRANTED

but limited as follows:

• Interrogatory No. 7: This request is limited to information that pertains to the

circumstances of the collision such as, inter alia, weight and configuration of the

truck/cargo, speed/braking data, force/angle/mechanics of impact, etc. Hubbard

need not provide details regarding the personnel and entities involved, what he was

doing (other than as pertains to the circumstances of the collision), where he was

going, who instructed him to perform the task/trip/travel and for what purpose as

originally requested.

• RFP No. 15: This request is limited to exhibits and/or documentary evidence that

Hubbard plans on introducing at trial in this matter. Hubbard need not provide any

impeachment or rebuttal evidence as this is not required under Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 26.

• RFP No. 21 & 30: These requests are limited to documents pertaining to the

circumstances of the collision such as, inter alia, weight and configuration of the

truck/cargo, speed/braking data, force/angle/mechanics of impact, etc. Hubbard

need not produce documents that do not pertain to the circumstances of the

collision.

Defendants shall provide full and complete responses to the preceding discovery requests

subject to the limitations set out above within fourteen (14) days of this Memorandum Order.

Defendants shall properly organize and produce any responsive documents so that it is clear to

Plaintiff to which request(s) the document(s) is(are) responsive.

In the event Defendants contend any of the documents compelled by this Memorandum

Order do not exist or are not in its possession, custody, or control, they shall so state in a declaration

under oath or in an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury (see 28 U.S.C. §1746) and such

declaration shall be provided to Plaintiff within the response deadline.

Finally, with respect to any document productions previously made by Defendants,

Defendants shall make an amended production in which the documents previously produced shall

be properly organized and identified so that it is clear to Plaintiff to which RFP or other discovery

request(s) the document(s) is(are) responsive. This amended production shall be made by

Defendants within fourteen (14) days of this Memorandum Order.

Deposition Requests:

Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling a handful of depositions.2 As explained above, the

Joint Stipulation of Liability [doc. 80] has rendered many of these depositions irrelevant and

disproportionate. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel [doc. 83, att. 15, p. 8] depositions of CAR’s

safety representative and CAR employees other than defendant Hubbard, specifically, Gerald

Price, Zac Watson, and Cal Ochoa, is DENIED.

The Motion to Compel [doc. 83, att. 15, p. 8] the deposition of CAR and Hubbard, however,

is GRANTED. These depositions shall be limited to topics solely related to the circumstances of

the collision such as, inter alia, weight and configuration of the truck/cargo, speed/braking data,

force/angle/mechanics of impact, etc., causation of Plaintiff’s injuries and her damages.

Additionally, as ordered orally on the record at the May 28, 2026 hearing, by June 3, 2026,

the parties shall participate in a conference either in person or by telephone to identify all remaining

deponents and to provide one another every available deposition date counsel has between the

conference date and July 31, 2026. The parties shall hold each of these available dates open until

all remaining depositions are scheduled within this window. Finally, the parties are further ordered

to file no later than June 5, 2026, a joint status report regarding their efforts to arrange all remaining

depositions.

2 The court notes again that it is only addressing the requested depositions set out in the Joint Submission Regarding

Discovery Requests Still in Dispute prepared and provided pursuant to the Notice of Motion Setting [doc. 84].

B. Motion to Strike

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36,

A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes

of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule

26(b)(1) relating to:

(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and

(B) the genuineness of any described documents.

* * *

A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to

whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer

or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.

* * *

The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer

or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that

an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this

rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an

amended answer be served.

Here, although Plaintiff seeks to have all Requests for Admission that were sent to CAR

[doc. 85, att. 3] admitted due to CAR’s untimely answers and boilerplate objections, as discussed

above, many of these requests are now irrelevant due to the Joint Stipulation filed by the parties

[doc. 80]. There are a handful of requests, however, that are relevant to the issues remaining for

trial to which CAR provided only boilerplate objections [Doc. 85, att. 5], which fail to raise a

justifiable reason to withhold an answer to the request. See Scott v. United States Postal Serv., No.

CV 15-712-BAJEWD, 2016 WL 7440468, at *4 (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016) (“conclusory objections

that the requested discovery is ‘overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant’ are

insufficient[.]” (Citations omitted)); Romero v. United States, No. 6:23-CV-00032, 2024 WL

436892 at *2 (W.D. La. Feb. 2, 2024) (“Boilerplate objections are unacceptable.”); VeroBlue

Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf, 345 F.R.D. 406, 420 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (Holding that the only thing a

boilerplate objection accomplishes is waiver of the objection). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Strike [doc. 85] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

• Requests for Admission Nos. 10, 19, 21, and 22: CAR provided a response to each of these

requests that was subject to a boilerplate objection. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike [doc.

85] is GRANTED insofar as each boilerplate objection within the responses to these

requests is struck and each request is deemed admitted.

• Requests for Admission Nos. 1-6, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16: Each of these requests seeks

admission to a fact that has now been established through the Joint Stipulation [doc. 80].

Accordingly, the Motion to Strike [doc. 85] as to these requests is DENIED AS MOOT.

• Requests for Admission Nos. 7, 8, 17, and 23-28: Each of these requests seeks admission

related to a fact that has now been established through the Joint Stipulation [doc. 80],

making them irrelevant to the remaining issues for trial. Accordingly, as Rule 36 only

allows requests for information that is relevant and within the scope of Rule 26, the Motion

to Strike [doc. 85] the responses to these requests and deem them admitted is DENIED.

• Requests for Admission Nos. 13, 18, and 20: Each of these requests seeks an admission that

would call for a legal conclusion to be made, which is not within the permissible scope of

admissions allowed to be sought under Rule 36. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike the

responses to these requests and deem them admitted is DENIED.

Finally, Plaintiff argues the Requests for Admission should be deemed admitted because

the Defendants answered jointly and not individually. This argument is unpersuasive as the

Requests for Admissions [doc. 85, att. 3] were only directed to CAR, and so only CAR was

obligated to respond. The relief herein granted with respect to the Requests for Admission shall

apply only to CAR, even though the responses mistakenly named all defendants [doc. 85, att. 5].

C. Motion for Protective Order

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [doc. 90] seeks an order preventing Plaintiff from

obtaining discovery, by written request of by deposition, of any matters that fall outside of the

issues of causation of Plaintiff’s injuries and the extent of her damages. As all of the requested

relief in Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [doc. 90] has been granted through the resolution

of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [doc. 83] and Motion to Strike [doc. 85], see supra Section II(A)-

(B), Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART to the extent consistent

with this court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motions as set forth herein, and DENIED IN PART to the

extent Defendants seek any relief in addition to or inconsistent therewith.

D. Motion for Attorney Fees

If a court grants a Rule 37 motion to compel, “the court must, after giving an opportunity

to be heard, require the party or deponent 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). But the court must not order

the payment of expenses if: “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to

obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure,

response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of

expenses unjust.” Id. The rule is the same with respect to motions for protective orders. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(c)(3).

The court finds that an award for reasonable expenses and attorney fees is unwarranted on

the record of this matter as to any and all of the motions resolved. Accordingly, each motion for

an award of reasonable expenses and attorney fees [docs. 83, 85, 90] is DENIED.

Hil.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel [doc. 83] is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART as hereinabove set forth. Defendants shall provide full and

complete responses to the discovery requests served by Plaintiff in accordance with this

Memorandum Order within fourteen (14) days after the date of this Memorandum Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by June 3, 2026, the parties shall participate in a

conference either in person or by telephone to identify all remaining deponents and to provide one

another every available deposition date counsel has between the conference date and July 31, 2026.

The parties shall hold each of these available dates open until all remaining depositions are

scheduled within this window. No later than June 5, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status report

regarding their efforts to arrange all remaining depositions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [doc. 85] is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART as hereinabove set forth.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as hereinabove set forth.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party’s request for reasonable expenses and

attorney fees in connection with each of their respective motions [docs. 83, 85, 90] is DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 5" day of June, 2026.

UNITED S ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-12-