Hill v. Wheel Pros Holding, LP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JALEN HILL CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-547-SDD-RLB
WHEEL PROS LLC
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses. (R.
Doc. 13). The deadline for filing an opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the motion is
unopposed.
On or about March 3, 2025, Jalen Hill (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action, alleging that he
was injured in a motor vehicle collision by a driver operating a vehicle in the scope and course of
his employment with Wheel Pros Holdings LP. (R. Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff then filed an Amended
Petition naming Wheel Pros LLC (“Defendant”) as the defendant. (R. Doc. 1-2). Defendant
removed the action on June 24, 2025. (R. Doc.1)
On August 20, 2025, Defendant served its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents to Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 13-1). This set of written discovery consists of 34
interrogatories1 and 37 requests for production, including 10 requests to execute various
authorization forms.2
Plaintiff provided timely responses and objections on September 19, 2025. (R. Doc. 13-
2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).
1 Rule 33 only allows a party to serve 25 written interrogatories absent stipulation between the parties or a court
order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1)(“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any
other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional
interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).”).
2 Defendant did not attach any of these authorization forms to the instant motion.
Case 3:25-cv-00547-SDD-RLB Document 22 02/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
On October 2, 2025, defense counsel emailed a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel unilaterally
setting a telephone discovery conference to be held one week later on October 9, 2025 at 10:00
a.m., stating that defense counsel “will initiate the call.” (R. Doc. 13-4). The email and letter do
not identify the specific responses and objections that Defendant deemed “insufficient.”
Defense counsel certifies that he “conferred or attempted to confer with counsel for
Plaintiff regarding the discovery issues which are the basis of this motion on October 9, 2025 at
10:00 a.m. by phone.” (R. Doc. 13 at 4) (emphasis added). Defendant’s memorandum in support,
however, makes it clear that no conference was actually held. Defendant states, with no further
explanation, that “Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for the [Rule 37(a)(1)] Conference.” (R.
Doc. 13-5 at 1). Defendant does not explain whether defense counsel spoke with anyone at
Plaintiff’s counsel’s office or otherwise left a voicemail detailing the specific discovery requests
at issue and the purported deficiencies. With no apparent further communication or attempt at
communication, Defendant states that it “withheld this Motion to Compel filing for another
month to allow Plaintiff time to supplement his responses” but Plaintiff’s counsel never
contacted Defendant. (R. Doc. 13-5 at 1).
On November 24, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel, asserting that
Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-5, 8-16, 20-22, 26, 27, and 34 (18 total
interrogatories) and Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 21,
23, and 25-36 (25 requests for production) are “incomplete, insufficient, or nonresponsive.” (R.
Doc. 13-5 at 1-2). Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide “complete and
sufficient responses” by a date certain, and awarding attorney’s fees and costs. (R. Doc. 13 at 3).
Defendant also appears to seek an order compelling Plaintiff to provide signed authorizations to
obtain “medical, IRS Tax Information, military, Social Security Earnings, employment records,
Case 3:25-cv-00547-SDD-RLB Document 22 02/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
unemployment benefits, original school records, Department of Social Services/Health and
Hospitals, Social Security Administration disability, and criminal” records. (R. Doc. 13-5 at 7).
For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the instant Motion to Compel without
prejudice to refile after the parties meet-and-confer with respect to the issues raised in the
motion.
As an initial matter, Defendant did not, as required by Local Rule 37, “quote verbatim
each interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission to which the motion is
addressed, followed immediately by the verbatim response or objection which provided thereto.”
LR 37. Granted, Defendant identified the 18 interrogatories and 25 requests for production at
issue in the motion and attached copies of the underlying written discovery requests and
Plaintiff’s responses and objections to its motion. But Defendant’s arguments on these 43 written
discovery requests (over the course of less than five pages) summarize the discovery requests
and ignores various responses and objections raised by Plaintiff. (See R. Doc. 15-5 at 3-8).
Defendant makes little attempt at meeting its initial burden of demonstrating the relevance of the
discovery sought.3
The Court recognizes that the instant Motion to Compel is deemed unopposed because
Plaintiff failed to file any timely response memorandum. See LR 7(f). And while it appears that
many of Plaintiff’s responses and objections may be evasive or incomplete, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(4), the Court will not compel the production of supplemental responses based on the
3 “The party filing the motion to compel ‘bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are
relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’” McCoy v. SC Tiger Manor, LLC, No.
19-723, 2021 WL 1321303, at *2 (M.D. La. Apr. 8, 2021) (quoting Tingle v. Hebert, No. 15-626, 2016 WL
7230499, at *2 (M.D. La. Dec. 14, 2016). “Once the moving party establishes that the materials requested are within
the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is
irrelevant, overly broad or unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted.” Id.; see also
Wymore v. Nail, No. 14-3493, 2016 WL 1452437, at *1 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2016) (“Once a party moving to compel
discovery establishes that the materials and information it seeks are relevant or will lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, the burden rests upon the party resisting discovery to substantiate its objections.”).
Case 3:25-cv-00547-SDD-RLB Document 22 02/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
instant motion, which is replete with conclusory statements and little substantive argument.4 The
Court will also not compel Plaintiff to sign authorization forms that have not been submitted for
the Court’s review.
Having considered the record, the Court will deny the instant Motion to Compel because
the record supports a finding that defense counsel failed to confer or attempt to confer with
Plaintiff’s counsel, in good faith, prior to filing the instant motion. Foremost, the Court’s
Scheduling Order provides the following:
Any motions filed regarding discovery must be accompanied by a certificate of
counsel for the moving party, stating that counsel have conferred in person or by
telephone for purposes of amicably resolving the issues and stating why they are
unable to agree or stating that opposing counsel has refused to so confer after
reasonable notice.
(R. Doc. 9 at 1). Defense counsel does not certify that opposing counsel “refused” to confer at
the October 9, 2025 conference. Furthermore, defense counsel does not identify any specific
attempt to notify Plaintiff’s counsel of the issues raised in the instant Motion to Compel (prior to
filing the motion) with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 3-5, 8-16, 20-22, 26, 27, and 34 and
Requests for Production Nos. 1, 5-8, 10, 12-16, 21, 23, and 25-36.
Moreover, Rule 37 requires a motion to compel to “include 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)
(emphasis added). Failure to comply with the meet and confer requirement may constitute
sufficient reason to deny a motion to compel. AIDS Healthcare Found., Inc. v. City of Baton
4 For example, Defendant seeks an order compelling supplemental responses to Request for Production No. 23. In
support of this position, Defendant writes “Request No. 23 sought documentation discussed in any meetings
between Plaintiff and his attorney and/or his doctors/experts. Plaintiff stated that he would not respond to this
request.” (R. Doc. 13-5 at 7). At best, this is a summary of the discovery request, objection, and response. But it
wholly ignores Plaintiff’s assertion of attorney-client privilege. (See R. Doc. 13-3 at 10). Defendant fails to set forth
any argument in support of an order compelling a supplemental response notwithstanding this objection.
Case 3:25-cv-00547-SDD-RLB Document 22 02/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Rouge/Par. of E. Baton Rouge Through City of Baton Rouge Div. of Hum. Dev. & Servs., No.
17-229, 2019 WL 1546937, at *3 (M.D. La. Apr. 9, 2019); Shaw Grp. Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins.
Co., No. 12-257, 2014 WL 4373197, at *3 (M.D. La. Sept. 3, 2014).
Here, defense counsel does not certify that any “good faith” attempt to confer was made
to resolve the discovery issues without court intervention. (See R. Doc. 13 at 4).5 And the record
supports a finding that Defendant did not make a “good faith” attempt to confer, given that
defense counsel only sent a single email setting a telephone conference and provides no
explanation regarding what occurred after that telephone conference was initiated. Even
assuming that Plaintiff’s counsel did not answer the phone, defense counsel should have at least
left a voicemail (or sent a written communication) identifying the specific discovery disputes and
inviting a response to avoid the need for court intervention. Instead, defense counsel waited for
over six weeks for supplemental responses without ever communicating the underlying
purported deficiencies requiring supplemental responses. Given the foregoing, the Court will
deny the motion for failure to satisfy Rule 37(a)(1). See Calhoun v. CarMax Bus. Servs., LLC,
No. 24-660, 2025 WL 3567851, at *2 (M.D. La. Nov. 17, 2025) (single email setting a
conference without further efforts to communicate is insufficient to meet the requirements of
Rule 37(a)(1)) (citing cases); McAllister v. McDermott, Inc., No.18-361, 2019 WL 6050724, at
*2 (M.D. La. Nov. 15, 2019) (single attempt through email to obtain supplemental responses
under threat of filing a motion to compel did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 37(a)(1))
(citing cases); see also Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 239, 240 (S.D. Miss. 2001)
(recognizing Rule 37(a)(1)’s meet-and-confer “prerequisite is not an empty formality”).
5 Defendant’s supporting memorandum, which was signed by a different attorney than the Rule 37(a)(1) certificate,
asserts that “Defendant has made a good faith effort to obtain complete and meaningful responses from Plaintiff
without having to seek judicial intervention.” (R. Doc. 13-5 at 3). The record does not support this assertion.
Case 3:25-cv-00547-SDD-RLB Document 22 02/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The parties have time to confer regarding the instant discovery dispute prior to the close
of non-expert discovery, which is currently set for March 27, 2026. The Court will deny the
instant Motion to Compel, without prejudice to refile after the parties have had the opportunity
to meet-and-confer in good faith.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses
(R. Doc. 13) is DENIED without prejudice to refile after the parties meet-and-confer in good
faith regarding the issues raised in this motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion pertaining to the written discovery at
issue in this Order shall include a Rule 37(a)(1) or Rule 26(c)(1) certificate detailing the
following: (1) when such conference took place, (2) who participated in the conference, (3) how
it was conducted (by phone or in person), (4) what topics were specifically addressed, (5) what
topics, if any, were resolved, and (6) how long the conference lasted (in minutes).
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 12, 2026.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00547-SDD-RLB Document 22 02/13/26 Page 6 of 6