Adams v. TDC General Contractors LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
REUBEN L. ADAMS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:22-cv-04110
TDC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LLC 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff has
responded. ECF No. 46. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the
Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred a portion of this Motion to the undersigned, and it is now ripe
for consideration. ECF No. 61.
1. 	BACKGROUND
In April 2019, Plaintiff engaged Defendant to provide general contractor services for the
construction and related work of a multiunit residential apartment complex located at 911 Pecorella
Street in Texarkana, Arkansas (the “Apartment Complex”). ECF No. 2. On November 9, 2022,
Plaintiff filed this suit alleging, inter alia, Defendant failed to perform in a workmanlike manner
in the construction of the Apartment Complex. Id.
On August 7, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with its First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff responded. ECF No. 45-5. On April 2,
2024, the parties deposed Plaintiff. ECF No. 45-3. During the deposition, Plaintiff mentioned the
complaints of some of the tenants of the Apartment Complex. Id. Following the deposition,
Defendant served Plaintiff with its Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production,
which included an interrogatory that Plaintiff “[p]rovide the names and contact information of all
tenants, both current and former for 911 Pecorella Street.” ECF No. 45-4, p. 3. On May 5, 2024,
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 71 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff responded and objected on the ground of relevancy, stating that the tenant information
interrogatory “lacks privacy and business brand jeopardy proportionality and requires disclosure
of trade secret or other confident research, development, or commercial information.” Id.
On May 15, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion requesting the Court enter an Order
compelling Plaintiff to produce the following information:
[I]dentify each document responsive to each of Defendant’s discovery requests,
state with specificity the amount of damages Plaintiff alleges is owed to him by
Defendant in response to each individual request, and provide the names and
contact information of all current and former tenants of the subject property in
response to each individual discovery request.
ECF No. 44, p. 2. On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff responded in opposition. ECF No. 46. The discovery
deadline in this matter expired on May 19, 2024. See ECF No. 36.
On June 21, 2024, the Honorable Susan O. Hickey entered an Order on the instant Motion
to Compel stating in part:
Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to the tenant information as
requested in their Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)…and that this information
clearly does not constitute a trade secret. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby
COMPELLED to produce to Defendant the tenant names and contact information
as requested in Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. The parties will then
have fourteen (14) days from the time the tenant information is produced to conduct
any depositions of the tenants. The remaining discovery issues…in Defendant’s
motion (ECF No. 44) are hereby REFERRED…
ECF No. 61, p. 2.
2. 	DISCUSSION
Currently before the Court are the issues in the Motion to Compel involving Plaintiff’s
alleged failure to properly identify documents and to specify the amount of damages claimed in
response to various interrogatories.
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 71 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs the use of, and response to, interrogatories.
Subsection (b)(3) of the rule requires each interrogatory to be answered separately and fully,
without reference to other interrogatories or documents. Mulero v-Abreu v. P.R. Police Dep’t, 675
F.3d 88, 93 (1st Cir. 2012) (“answering interrogatories simply by directing the proponent to
rummage through other discovery materials fall short of the obligations imposed by Rule 33”);
United States ex rel. O’Connell v. Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 2007)
(“an interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to
depositions or other documents or other interrogatories”).
In addition, Rule 33 provides in relevant part:
If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including
electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the
answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may
answer by: (1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to
enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the
responding party could…
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Similarly, regarding the production of documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34,
when a responding party produces documents or electronically stored information, “a party must
produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label
them to correspond to the categories in the request…” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).
a. 	Identification of documents
Here, Plaintiff’ has not labeled a single document he has produced and has failed to identify
a single Bates range of documents for any response to any interrogatory or request for production.
Instead, Plaintiff states repeatedly in response to numerous interrogatories and production of
document 	requests, 	“duplicating 	the 	plethora 	of 	documents, 	communication, 	and/or
correspondence provided to Defendant during [Plaintiff’s] efforts to resolve this matter prior to the
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 71 Filed 07/18/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
commencement of this lawsuit is overly burdensome.” ECF No. 45, p. 3. Clearly, Plaintiff’s
responses are not provided “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and
identify them as readily as the responding party could, as required by the Federal Rules. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(d). 1
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s First Set of interrogatories and Requests
for Production which do not specifically identify the documents relating to the discovery requests
are insufficient.
b. 	Amount of Damages
Next, Defendant argues Plaintiff refuses to state with specificity the exact dollar amount he
contends is owed to him by Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff repeatedly refers Defendant to a response
to a previous interrogatory which states:
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please list each and every item of compensatory
damages which you claim in this case. As to each item of special damages
claimed, state the amount you claim in damages.
[Plaintiff’s Response] Duplicating information provided in Plaintiff’s Initial
Disclosures is overly burdensome, Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s damages are: (a).
$76,500 in loss profits due to failure to complete construction as promised; (b).
$59,300 to cure framing deficiencies; (c). $7000 for retaining wall; (d). $9400 for
drainage; (e). $10,000 in mental anguish; (f). $162, 200 punitive damages; (g)
$115, 000 attorney fees; and (h). $66, 305 pre-judgment interest (to date).
ECF No. 45-5, p. 5. As previously stated, a response to an interrogatory which simply refers to the
answer of a separate interrogatory is insufficient.
1 The Court finds it ironic that Plaintiff asked Defendant to “link or otherwise identify each document, perhaps by
bates number,” in a good faith letter he sent to Defendant back in August of 2023. ECF No.
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 71 Filed 07/18/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
3. 	CONCLUSION
This Court, having reviewed the parties’ arguments and briefing, finds Defendant’s Motion
to Compel (ECF No. 44) should be GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to
supplement the following responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents (ECF No. 45-5) within 10 days of the date of this order:
 	Interrogatories Nos. 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21
 	Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
Further, and as discussed above, Plaintiff is ORDERED to answer each interrogatory and request
for production specifically without referring to other discovery responses or previous documents
produced to Defendant prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July 2024.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 71 Filed 07/18/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>