Weichbrodt v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NANCY DARLENE WEICHBRODT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-360-R
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 	)
COMPANY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is State Farm’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 27]. The motion
indicates that Plaintiff failed to serve responses to State Farm’s interrogatories, requests
for production, and request to permit entry. Plaintiff responded in opposition [Doc. No. 28]
arguing that the motion was moot because she has now served her responses. State Farm
submitted a reply [Doc. No. 29] and the matter is now at issue.
Plaintiff does not dispute the procedural history set out in State Farm’s motion.
Plaintiff sought an extension of the response deadline to which State Farm agreed, but
Plaintiff failed to submit responses by the deadline. However, because Plaintiff has now
provided responses, State Farm’s request to compel responses is denied as moot. State
Farm’s request to deem the objections waived, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4), is also denied
as this request was belatedly raised in their reply brief.
State Farm’s request for attorney’s fees is granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(5) provides that when discovery is provided after a motion to compel is filed, “the
court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose
Case 5:25-cv-00360-R Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay
the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s
fees.” However, the court must not order fees “if (i) the movant filed the motion before
attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the
opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii)
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id.
Here, there is no question that Plaintiff provided discovery responses after State
Farm filed its motion to compel. The Court is therefore required to award State Farm its
reasonable expenses unless one of the grounds enumerated in Rule 37(a)(5) is present. As
to the first ground, the evidence establishes that State Farm attempted to confer with
Plaintiff, and those efforts were rebuffed. As to the second and third grounds, Plaintiff
states that she was out of the country for several weeks with limited communication. That
does not substantially justify her failure to respond by the extended deadline or explain
why she did not attempt to obtain another extension of the deadline. Further, State Farm’s
alleged conduct in other cases does not relieve Plaintiff of her discovery obligations.
Plaintiff has not shown that the failure to respond was substantially justified or that there
are other circumstances that make an award of fees unjust.
Accordingly, as set out above, State Farm’s Motion to Compel is granted in part and
denied in part. State Farm is directed to submit evidence of its reasonable expenses
associated with bringing the motion to compel within fourteen days of the date of this
Order. Any objection to as to the amount of the request shall be filed seven days thereafter.
Case 5:25-cv-00360-R Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00360-R Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3