Lesh Trucking LLC v. Acrisure LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LESH TRUCKING, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-709-SLP
)
CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 	)
FRATES IRWIN RISK MANAGEMENT 	)
SOLUTIONS LLC, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
O R D E R
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 37] from
Defendant Frates Irwin Risk Management Solutions, LLC (“Frates”). Frates has not filed
a response nor sought an extension of time, and the deadline to do so has passed.
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks to compel written responses and responsive documents to
Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents served on Defendant
Frates on February 2, 2026. [Doc. No. 37] at 1. Although the briefing demonstrates that
counsel for the parties had been in communication regarding the discovery, Frates did not
serve its responses within the deadline of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Id. at 3.
Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(g), “[a]ny motion that is not opposed within 21 days
may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.” Because Frates failed to respond
to the Motion, the Court deems the Motion confessed and GRANTS it as unopposed. See
Matter of Mary Jane Mathis Rutherford Marital Tr., No. CIV-23-917-R, 2024 WL
Case 5:25-cv-00709-SLP Document 38 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 3

4556073, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2024) (granting motion to compel under local rules
as uncontested and confessed where party failed to file a response); Sanders v. Aerotek
Inc., No. CIV-20-01279-JD, 2023 WL 5736066 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 10, 2023) (same);
Guebara v. Finney Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept., No. 5:19-CV-03025-JAR-KGG, 2023 WL
1778308, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 6, 2023) (same).
Lastly, Plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) [Doc. No. 37] at 4–5. Because Frates failed to respond and
none of the Rule 37 exceptions apply, the mandatory imposition of costs and attorneys’
fees incurred in filing the present Motion are appropriate. See Rutherford Marital Tr., 2024
WL 4556073, at *2 (“A responsive filing was the avenue to object to Plaintiffs’ request for
attorney’s fees, and consequently, Defendant[] had the required ‘opportunity to be heard’
required by Rule 37.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 37] is
GRANTED. 	Defendant Frates Irwin Risk Management Solutions, LLC shall produce
written responses as well as all documents requested in Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests
for Production, [Doc. No. 37] at 10–11, within 14 days of the date of this Order. Failure
to comply with this Order may result in sanctions as provided by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and/or the Court’s inherent powers to manage its cases.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may recover its reasonable costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in making the Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), upon
separate application filed within 14 days from the date of this Order.
Case 5:25-cv-00709-SLP Document 38 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00709-SLP Document 38 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 3