Coleman v. National Community Reinvestment Coalition

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
ELLIOTTE PATRICK COLEMAN,
Debtor.
____________________________
ELLIOTTE PATRICK COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT COALITION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 06-00254
(Chapter 13)
Adversary Proceeding No.
07-10023
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS
The plaintiff Elliotte Patrick Coleman served his discovery
requests on January 19, 2008, and responses were due by February
21, 2008. 	He does not dispute that the defendant (“NCRC”) told
him (through counsel) on February 25, 2008, that NCRC’s discovery
responses were nearly complete and that they would be submitted
once each of the documents requested by Coleman was obtained and
copied. 	Coleman filed his motion to compel on February 29,
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: May 11, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-10023 Doc 82 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:37:40 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
2008. 	On March 4, 2008, NCRC submitted its responses to
Coleman’s discovery twelve days late.
Coleman does not contest that NCRC provided responses on
March 4, 2008. 	Coleman contests the adequacy of the objections
to certain questions he posed by way of interrogatories, but I
agree with NCRC that the questions were not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, the motion to compel is moot, other than as to
the question of sanctions. 	NCRC’s counsel represented to Coleman
on February 25, 2008, that the responses were nearly complete,
but does not dispute that it refused to give a specific time by
which responses would be filed. 	In that same conversation, NCRC
emphasizes, NCRC’s counsel extended the time for Coleman to
respond to NCRC’s discovery, but Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2)
contemplates that NCRC’s discovery did not require Coleman to
delay pursuit of his discovery. 	Although there was a delay of
twelve days in responding (because NCRC was still gathering all
of the requested documents) (and a delay of only eight days after
the conversation of February 25, 2008), NCRC could have sought an
enlargement of time to respond instead of putting Coleman to the
burden of protecting himself (instead of hoping that only a few
days would pass before NCRC responded to his discovery).
But Coleman is proceeding pro se and thus has incurred no
attorney’s fees, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) does not entitle
Case 07-10023 Doc 82 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:37:40 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Coleman vs National Community Reinvest't Coalition - Mem Dec & Order Denying Coleman Mtn to Compel Discoveryv2.wpd
him to be compensated for his time. 	See Manion v. American
Airlines, Inc., 395 F.3d 428, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 	His expenses
incurred (for photocopying, etc.) should be relatively modest,
but if he wants to pursue them, he may do so. 	It is thus
ORDERED that Coleman’s Motion to Compel Discovery and to
Request Sanctions (assigned Docket Entry Nos. 49 and 50) is
dismissed as moot except that within 28 days after entry of this
order, Coleman can file a statement of reasonable expenses he
incurred in pursuing the Motion to Compel Discovery and to
Request Sanctions (but not for the reply he filed on March 24,
2008 (Docket Entry No. 59), with NCRC to file any opposition to
that statement within 21 days after its filing.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record; Cynthia A. Niklas, Chapter 13
Trustee; Office of U.S. Trustee.
Case 07-10023 Doc 82 Filed 05/12/09 Entered 05/12/09 08:37:40 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3