Wilkerson v. Safeco Insurance Company Of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MATTIE WILKERSON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-834-BAJ-RLB
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses. (R.
Doc. 9). The deadline for filing an opposition has expired. LR 7(f). Accordingly, the motion is
unopposed. Defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum. (R. Doc. 12).
I. Background
On or about August 7, 2025, Mattie Wilkerson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action seeking
to recover under an insurance policy issued by Safeco Insurance Company of America
(“Defendant”) for damages caused by a neighbor’s tree falling on her property. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 2-
5). Defendant removed the action on September 18, 2025. (R. Doc.1)
On September 30, 2025, Defendant served its First Set of Requests for Admissions,
Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Inspection on Plaintiff.
(R. Doc. 9-2).
Plaintiff had 30 days to respond to the written discovery requests after they were served.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiff did not
provide responses by that deadline. Defendant certifies that the parties held a discovery
conference on November 20, 2025, at which Defendant agreed to give Plaintiff until December
4, 2025 to provide responses. Responses were not provided and Defendant filed the Motion to
Compel on December 12, 2025. (R. Doc. 9 at 2). Defendant now seeks an order compelling
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production, finding the requests for
admission to be deemed admitted, and awarding reasonable expenses pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5)(A). (R. Doc. 9-1).
Plaintiff did not file a timely response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel. See LR 7(f).
Nevertheless, without informing the Court, on December 30, 2025, Plaintiff provided late
responses to Defendant’s interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. (R.
Doc. 12-1).
Defendants then filed a Supplemental Memorandum, which argues that many of these
responses remain “non-responsive,” Plaintiff has failed to provide dates for Defendant’s expert
witness to inspect the property, and Defendant’s requests for admission remain admitted
notwithstanding Plaintiff’s late denials. (R. Doc. 12).
Plaintiff did not file any response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 9) or
Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum (R. Doc. 12).
II. Law and Analysis
A. Legal Standards
“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties
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, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,
the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: “(i) the
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 2 of 7

3
discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii)
the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C).
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the
burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific
demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra
Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323,
1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)).
A party must respond or object to an interrogatory or request for production within thirty
days after service of the discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).
This default date may be modified by stipulation between the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). With
respect to an interrogatory, the objection must “be stated with specificity” and objections are
“waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(4). With
respect to a request for production, “[a]n objection must state whether any responsive materials
are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). If a party fails to
respond fully to discovery requests made pursuant to Rule 33 or Rule 34 in the time allowed by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery may move to compel responses
and for appropriate sanctions under Rule 37. An “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or
response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 3 of 7

4
A party may move “for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or
inspection” where “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33” or “a party
fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted--or fails to permit
inspection--as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv).
Rule 36 is self-executing.1 “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
36(a)(3). Rule 36(b) provides that “[a] matter admitted . . . is conclusively established unless the
court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 36(b);
see In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[A] deemed admission can only be
withdrawn or amended by motion in accordance with Rule 36(b).”). “[T]he court may permit
withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if
the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or
defending the action on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
B. Analysis
Here, the record supports a finding that Plaintiff did not provide responses within the
default 30-day deadline after service if written discovery, did not provide responses by the
December 4, 2025 extended deadline provided by Defendant, and then then only provided
responses (with certain objections) after Defendant filed its Motion to Compel. Plaintiff also did
not respond to Defendant’s Motion to Compel or otherwise inform the Court that late responses
1 A party cannot seek to compel the response to a request for admission pursuant to Rule 37(a). At the appropriate
time in a proceeding, however, a party may seek the payment of reasonable expenses incurred where a responding
party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36 and the requesting party later proves a document to be genuine
or the matter to be true. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2).
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 4 of 7

5
and objections were provided on December 30, 2025. Plaintiff has not filed anything in the
record to indicate her position with respect to the discovery issues raised by Defendant.
Having considered the record, the Court will grant the instant motion to the extent it
seeks an order compelling responses to the requests for production and interrogatories, but will
deny relief with respect to the requests for admission.
A party generally waives all objections, with the exception of those pertaining to any
applicable privileges or immunities, where it fails to provide timely discovery responses. See In
re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[A]s a general rule, when a party fails to
object timely to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, objections thereto
are waived.”); B&S Equip. Co. v. Truckle Servs., Inc., No. 09-3862, 2011 WL 2637289, at *6
(E.D. La. July 6, 2011) (finding waiver of all objections to “discovery requests based on
relevance, unduly burdensome, over broad, or any other objection not grounded on the attorney
client or the work product privilege.”). Rule 33 provides that the grounds for objecting to an
interrogatory must be stated with specificity and any ground not stated in a timely objection is
waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Rule 34
similarly provides that the grounds for objecting to a request for production must be stated with
specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Rule 34 further provides that, “[a]n objection must state
whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection
to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(C).
Here, Plaintiff did not submit any written responses or objections to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests within 30 days after they were served or by the extended deadline agreed upon by the
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 5 of 7

6
parties.2 That Plaintiff provided late discovery responses after the filing of the Motion the
Compel does not necessarily render the instant motion moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)
(mandating award of expenses where the responding party provides the requested discovery after
the filing of a motion to compel). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has waived all
objections to the interrogatories and requests for production other than those based on any
applicable privilege or immunities.
The Court will, however, allow Plaintiff to object to the written discovery to the extent
they prematurely seek information and disclosures (including any expert identities and opinions)
prior to specific deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order. Otherwise, Plaintiff must
provide complete supplemental responses to the requests for production and interrogatories at
issue, without further objection other than those based on any applicable privilege or immunities.
In addition, Plaintiff must provide appropriate dates for a property inspection in response
to Defendant’s Rule 34 Request for Inspection. Plaintiff’s objection in his supplemental response
to reinspection by any new expert is overruled. (See R. Doc. 12-1 at 12). Now that this action has
been removed to federal court, Defendant may inspect the underlying property pursuant to Rule
34. The inspection may be conducted by an appropriate expert identified by Defendant. Given
the nature of a property inspection, however, the Court will require the parties to meet and confer
with respect to the timing and scope of the inspection. Any remaining disputes regarding the
2 Among other things, Plaintiff waived any objections regarding the deadline for providing discovery responses. The
written discovery at issue was served on September 30, 2025. The parties submitted a joint status report on
November 20, 2025. (R. Doc. 7). “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred
as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when
authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Furthermore, an “early” Rule
34 request for production “is considered to have been served at the first Rule 26(f) conference.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(d)(2). It is unclear when the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference. At any rate, in the absence of any positions
submitted by Plaintiff, the record supports a finding that the parties held a Rule 37(a)(1) conference on November
20, 2025 at which Plaintiff agreed to provide responses by December 4, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29.
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 6 of 7

7
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
property inspection must be raised by separate motion and accompanied by a certification
pursuant to Rule 37(a)(1) or Rule 26(c)(1).
Because Rule 36 is self-executing, however, the Court will not issue any specific relief
with respect to Defendant’s requests for admission, which are deemed admitted under Rule 36.
Plaintiff’s untimely responses do not withdraw or amend the deemed admissions. (See R. Doc.
12-1 at 1-3). Furthermore, the Court will not withdraw or amend the deemed admissions absent
the filing of a motion pursuant to Rule 36(b). See Am. Auto. Ass'n (Inc.) v. AAA Legal Clinic of
Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991).
While the Court finds it concerning that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s Motion
to Compel, the Court will require the parties to bear their own costs given that Plaintiff provided
certain untimely responses and the instant motion has been partially denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(C).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses
(R. Doc. 9) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff must provide complete
supplemental responses to Defendant’s interrogatories, requests for production, and request for
inspection without any objections other than those pertaining to any applicable privileges or
immunities, within 7 days of the date of this Order, or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall bear their own costs.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 9, 2026.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00834-BAJ-RLB Document 13 02/09/26 Page 7 of 7