T.E.N. Investments, Inc. v. Chapter Kris Jackson, Aristocrat Motors Inc., Christopher Adam Jackson, Aristocrat Motor Company, Inc., and Snowy Owl LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff T.E.N. Investments, Inc.’s motion to compel discovery responses from pro se defendants Chapter Jackson and Christopher Jackson. The court orders Chapter Jackson to produce specified documents and provide supplemental interrogatory responses, and orders Christopher Jackson to provide supplemental interrogatory responses, all within 30 days.

Holdings

1. Chapter Jackson must produce all documents responsive to Requests for Production 1-4, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 17-19, 29, and 31-44, or serve supplemental responses stating without objection that no responsive documents exist.
2. Chapter Jackson must serve supplemental responses fully answering Interrogatories 1-3, 7-10, and 12-20 without objection.
3. Christopher Jackson must serve supplemental responses fully answering Interrogatories 1-3 and 7-17 without objection.
4. The court declined to deem the Jacksons' objections abandoned solely because they failed to file an opposition, and instead considered the objections in ruling on the motion.
5. Chapter Jackson's vision impairment was not a valid objection to answering interrogatories or producing responsive documents, and the court did not impose an accommodation obligation on plaintiff based on the record presented.
6. The request to compel Christopher Jackson to produce documents was denied because his responses stated that he possessed no responsive documents and plaintiff did not show that he actually had responsive documents within his possession, custody, or control.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Chapter Jackson should be compelled to produce documents responsive to specified requests for production and provide complete answers to specified interrogatories.
2. Whether Christopher Jackson should be compelled to provide complete answers to specified interrogatories.
3. Whether the Jacksons' objections were waived or otherwise should be overruled because they did not oppose the motion to compel.
4. Whether Chapter Jackson's asserted vision impairment excused her from responding to interrogatories or producing responsive documents.

Disposition

other