Giroir v. The Dow Chemical Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KEVIN GIROIR 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-452-SDJ
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Clarification
of Record Regarding Meet-and-Confer (R. Doc. 100). Defendant, The Dow Chemical Company,
opposes Plaintiff’s Motion (R. Doc. 103).1 	For the reasons set forth below, each of Plaintiff’s
Motions is denied.
In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant “to provide complete
discovery responses and to correct the record regarding Plaintiff’s compliance with the meet-and-
confer requirement.”2 	However, upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff has filed yet another
frivolous Motion in this matter, as explained below.
First, as clearly set forth in this Court’s Local Civil Rules, “[m]otions addressed to issues
concerning discovery propounded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36 and 37 must 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 [was] provided
thereto.” L.R. 37. Here, Plaintiff does not even specify what discovery responses he is seeking in
his Motion, much less quote them verbatim. 	As the Court cannot tell from the Motion which
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Compel and Opposition to Defendant’s Request
for Fees (R. Doc. 108). However, Plaintiff’s Reply was filed without leave of Court in contravention of Local Civil
Rule 7(f) and, therefore, has not been considered herein.
2 R. Doc. 100 at 2.
Case 3:25-cv-00452-SDJ Document 136 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

specific requests are at issue, and as Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 37, this Motion
must be denied. See Romero v. ABC Ins. Co., 320 F.R.D. 36, 40 (W.D. La. 2017) (“Pro se litigants
are not exempt from compliance with the rules of procedure.”); Roberson v. Golden Living Center,
No. 08-241, 2009 WL 3617741, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 29, 2009) (“A plaintiff proceeding pro se
is required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the local rules of this
court.”).
Second, no proper Rule 37 conference took place between the parties prior to this Motion
being filed. 	While Plaintiff adamantly asserts he has met his meet-and-confer burden, he has
produced only emails in which he lists Defendant’s purported deficiencies with discovery
responses, but nowhere does he request an in person or telephone meeting or respond to
Defendant’s request to schedule a time to discuss outstanding discovery issues.3 	This is not
sufficient to satisfy Rule 37’s mandate that the parties in good faith confer or attempt to confer.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). See also Limtiaco v. Auction Cars.Com, LLC, No. 11-370, 2012 WL
5179708, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 17, 2012) (concluding that several letters identifying the perceived
failings of the defendant’s discovery responses did not constitute the necessary effort required by
Rule 37); Velazquez–Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 272 F.R.D. 310, 312 (D.P.R.
2011) (determining the emails and letters sent to defendant did not reveal that a good faith effort
was made; “[t]he record shows that the defendant was willing to meet with plaintiff in order to
solve the discovery dispute but that plaintiff never acceded to that fairly simple request”); Robinson
v. Napolitano, No. 08–4084, 2009 WL 1586959, at **2-3 (D.S.D. Jun. 4, 2009) (finding that the
government’s letter to the plaintiff, outlining why his discovery responses were deficient, did not
satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement). As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel must be denied.
3 See, e.g., R. Doc. 100 at 4 (“Let us know when you are available and we should be able to accommodate your
schedule.”).
Case 3:25-cv-00452-SDJ Document 136 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

In its Opposition, Defendant seeks an award of its costs and attorney’s fees incurred in
having to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion.4 Rule 37(a)(5)(B) provides that when a motion to compel
is denied, a court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant . . . to pay the
party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the
motion, including attorney’s fees.” However, a court need not make such an award “if the motion
was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37 (a)(5)(B). Here, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this litigation. 	However, Plaintiff previously has filed numerous meritless motions
and continues to pepper the Court with additional Motions, as evidenced by the nine additional
recently-filed Motions still pending before the Court.5 	Moreover, this is the fourth Motion to
Compel Plaintiff has filed, all of which have been found to be frivolous and/or non-compliant with
applicable rules.6
In a prior Order by the Court addressing multiple Motions to Compel by Plaintiff, the
Court, in addition to admonishing Plaintiff for frivolous filings, denied a similar request for
attorney’s fees and costs by Defendant, stating, “[t]o allow Plaintiff time to review the information
herein provided as well as the additional information provided at the upcoming in-person status
conference, the Court finds that, currently, circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”7
That Order was issued on September 17, 2025. The instant Motion was filed on October 30, 2025.
In a status conference held before the Court on October 23, 2025, the Court encouraged Plaintiff
to communicate by telephone as needed, as opposed to using email alone, to which Plaintiff
4 R. Doc.103 at 6-7.
5 See R. Docs. 105, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 122, 126, and 127.
6 See R. Docs. 37, 38, 55, and 74.
7 R. Doc. 74 at 3.
Case 3:25-cv-00452-SDJ Document 136 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
expressed his understanding and agreement.8 	Clearly, Plaintiff has not taken any direction or
admonishments by the Court to heart. As such, the Court will award a small amount of costs and
attorney’s fees to Defendant, as it finds such an award justified under these circumstances. To that
end, Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant $100.00 in costs and fees for having to respond to this
Motion.
Accordingly,
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Discovery 	Responses 	and
Clarification of Record Regarding Meet-and-Confer (R. Doc. 100) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay Defendant $100.00 on or before
February 4, 2026.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 20, 2026.
8 R. Doc. 98 at 1.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00452-SDJ Document 136 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4