Casa Grande Homes Inc v. Cote et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CASA GRANDE HOMES, INC., )
an Oklahoma Corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-779-G
)
MICHEL CÔTÉ et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendants Michel Côté, C&S Enterprises (Hawkesbury)
Ltd., and Ray Air Maintenance, Inc.’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 23). Defendants
represent that Plaintiff Casa Grande Homes, Inc. has not responded to Defendants’ First
Set of Discovery Requests. See id. at 1-2. Accordingly, Defendants request that Plaintiff
be compelled to respond to the discovery requests, a determination that Defendants’
Requests for Admission are deemed admitted, and a determination that Plaintiff has waived
the right to object to Defendants’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production. See id. at
1; id. Ex. 1, Defs.’ First Set of Disc. Reqs. (Doc. No. 23-1) at 5-11.
Plaintiff has not filed a response within the time allowed by this Court’s Local Rules
or sought additional time to do so. Therefore, the Court deems Defendants’ Motion
confessed as to the factual representations made therein. See LCvR 7.1(g).
Plaintiff having offered no opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No.
23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve responses to the Interrogatories and produce
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 28 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 2

2
documents and information responsive to the Requests for Production in the First Set of
Discovery Requests upon Defendant within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
The Court FINDS that, based on Plaintiff’s lack of response, the matters specified
in the Requests for Admission in the First Set of Discovery Requests are deemed admitted
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3).
Further, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff has waived any grounds to object to the
Interrogatories or the Requests for Production in the First Set of Discovery Requests. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4), 34(b)(2)(B); In re Mary Jane Mathis Rutherford Marital Tr., No.
CIV-23-917-R, 2024 WL 4556073, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2024) (“[W]hile Rule 34
does not contain an explicit waiver provision for failure to produce or object, this Court
has agreed with sister jurisdictions and held that a failure to timely object to requests for
production constitutes waiver.”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are entitled to their “reasonable
expenses incurred” in preparing and submitting the Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 23),
“including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). If the parties cannot agree on the
amount of these expenses within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendants
may submit to the Court an itemization of its claimed expenses, and Plaintiff may respond
within ten (10) days thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-00779-PRW Document 28 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 2