Shawna Gaboriault, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Primmer, Piper, Eggleston, & Cramer, P.C., and John Does 1 to 10

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied defendants’ motion to compel, motion for sanctions, and request for expenses in a putative class action arising from an alleged data breach. The court held that the plaintiff’s delayed discovery responses were substantially justified by agreed extensions and counsel’s illnesses, and that waiver of objections and an award of expenses were unwarranted.

Holdings

1. Production of discovery after a motion to compel is filed does not moot the motion for purposes of determining expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).
2. The delayed production was substantially justified because much of the delay resulted from agreed extensions and counsel's unforeseen illnesses objectively justified the remaining delay or, at minimum, created a genuine dispute regarding its reasonableness.
3. An award of expenses and attorney's fees was not warranted because plaintiff's delay was substantially justified, an award would be unjust under the circumstances, and defendants suffered insufficient prejudice.
4. Plaintiff's untimely objections were not deemed waived because good cause excused the untimeliness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4).

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's service of discovery responses after defendants filed their motion to compel required an order compelling responses or otherwise left the motion subject to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).
2. Whether plaintiff's delayed discovery responses were substantially justified or whether other circumstances made an award of expenses unjust under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).
3. Whether plaintiff's untimely discovery objections should be deemed waived under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4).

Disposition

other