ELMIRA JOHNSON PLAINTIFF v. D.Q. DENSON, JR., et al. DEFENDANTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10cv123-DPJ-FKB United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division Filed May 12, 2011 Counsel John L. Walker, Jr., Phillip J. Brookins, Walker Group, P.C., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff. William H. Gillon, IV, Upshaw, Williams, Biggers, Beckham & Riddick, LLP, Jackson, MS, for Defendants. Ball, F. Keith, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel [44] and related supplemental motions [49 & 53]. Having considered the motions, responses, and replies, the Court rules as follows. Interrogatory No. 1: The motions are granted as to Interrogatory No. 1. Defendant shall supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 1 to provide the information requested. Interrogatory No. 2: The motions are granted as to subsections (b), (c), and (d) but, at this time, denied as to subsection (a). Defendant shall supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 to provide the information requested in subsections (b), (c), and (d). In response to this interrogatory, Defendant stated that it has produced a transcript of Plaintiff's taped statement and that the audio tape of the Plaintiff's statement is in defense counsel's possession and available upon request. Defendant otherwise objects to this interrogatory based on the work product doctrine. If Defendant is withholding any statements under a claim of work product, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4: These interrogatories request detailed information about “all” lawsuits, worker's compensation claims, and non-lawsuit/worker's compensation claims “ever” filed or asserted against Defendant alleging injuries “as a result of the movement, storage, transport and/or handling of merchandise of any type” by any employees of Defendant “in the United States,” including, but not limited to, the names, addresses and phone numbers of the claimants and their respective employers; descriptions of each claim; names, addresses and telephone numbers of all attorneys representing each such claimant; dates, street addresses, cities, and states of locations of each incident; facts alleged by each such claimant in each and every such claim; names, addresses, and employers of each employee involved in each such incident; dates of final disposition of each such claim; and descriptions of how each such claim was resolved. Defendant objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome and further states that it “has no way of” determining all of the requested information. The Defendant's objections are well taken, and the motions are denied as to these interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 7: The motions are denied as to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad and responding would be unduly burdensome. Interrogatory No. 10: In response to this interrogatory which requests that Defendant describe how the subject incident occurred, Defendant objected on grounds of work product and attorney/client privilege. In response to the motion to compel, Defendant claims that its objections are “appropriate in that other than the facts and information that has [sic] been gathered by its attorneys regarding this lawsuit and this accident, as a company, it has no independent knowledge regarding how the incident in this case happened and all the events occurring immediately before and after the incident.” First of all, Defendant has failed to identify in its interrogatory response or a privilege log any specific document, statement, communication, or other material as to which it claims work product or attorney/client privilege. Further, in its above-quoted response to the motion to compel, Defendant apparently fails to acknowledge its own duty as a corporation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1)(B) which states that, in responding to interrogatories, a corporation “must furnish the information available to the party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). “The person responding on behalf of the [corporate] entity is under a duty to obtain and provide nonprivileged information known to anyone in the entity's employ or over whom it has control. This includes information known to the entity's agents or lawyers (assuming the information is otherwise discoverable and neither privileged nor protected work product).” Hittner, Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 11:1748 (5th Cir. Ed. 2010). If Defendant is withholding information under a claim of work product and/or attorney/client privilege, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). However, if Defendant intends to offer any evidence at trial as to how the subject incident occurred, Defendant shall supplement its response to this interrogatory and describe how it contends the subject incident happened including relevant events occurring immediately before and after the incident. *2 Interrogatory No. 12: If Defendant is withholding documents or materials regarding surveillance of Plaintiff under a claim of work product, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). If Defendant intends to use any evidence at trial regarding surveillance of Plaintiff, Defendant shall supplement its response to this interrogatory to provide the information requested. Interrogatory No. 14: The motions are denied as to Interrogatory No. 14. Defendant's response identifying the person who was the manager and responsible for enforcing Defendant's policies and procedures at the subject store is sufficiently responsive to this interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 17: As to Interrogatory No. 17, the motions are denied to the extent that this interrogatory seeks to require that Defendant describe each and every electronically stored document produced to Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production. However, if Defendant is withholding any electronically stored documents in response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production under a claim of privilege or other protection but the documents would otherwise be discoverable, Defendant shall produce a privilege log as to those documents in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). Request for Production No. 1: Defendant shall supplement its response to this request to state, as represented in its response to the motion to compel, that “the only statement in its possession is that of the Plaintiff, and a copy of said statement has been produced to her attorney.” However, if any statements are withheld by Defendant in this case under a claim of privilege or other protection, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). Request for Production No. 2: In its motion, Plaintiff failed to provide this Court with Defendant's response to this request. In its response to the motion to compel, Defendant objects to this request stating that it “is not limited in scope or time nor is the request limited to the area of the store where the accident occurred.” Further, Defendant states that it is not in possession of “any photographs, videos, or slides taken in the area of the store where the accident occurred on or about the time fo the accident.” The motions are denied as to Request for Production No. 2 on the grounds that it is overly broad and for the other reasons stated in Defendant's response to the motion to compel. Request for Production No. 4: If Defendant is withholding any photographs, slides and/or video tapes of Plaintiff under a claim of work product, privilege or other protection, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). If Defendant intends to use any any photographs, slides and/or video tapes of Plaintiff at trial, Defendant shall produce them. Request for Production No. 5: Defendant shall supplement its response to this request to state, as represented in its response to the motion to compel, that it “has produced all documents in its possession that it believes to be reasonably responsive to this request.” Otherwise, the motions are denied as to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Request for Production Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 12: The motions are denied as to Request for Production Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 12 on the grounds that these requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the Court finds that the burden and expense of investigating the existence and production of the requested documents outweighs their likely benefit to the Plaintiff in this case. *3 Request for Production No. 13: Defendant shall supplement its response to this request to state, as represented in its response to the motion to compel, that it “has produced all documents in its possession that it believes to be reasonably responsive to this request.” Otherwise, the motions are denied as to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Request for Production No. 14: If Defendant is withholding any surveillance materials as described in this request under a claim of work product, privilege or other protection, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). If Defendant intends to use any such surveillance materials at trial, Defendant shall produce them. Request for Production No. 15: Defendant shall supplement its response to this request to state, as represented in its response to the motion to compel, that it “has produced all documents in its possession that it believes to be reasonably responsive to this request.” Otherwise, the motions are denied as to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Request for Production No. 17: The motions are denied as to this request, except that Defendant shall produce all responsive documents which Defendant will offer at trial and all responsive documents which constitute expert reports required to be produced by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(a)(2)(B) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(2). Request for Production No. 18, 19 and 20: If Defendant is withholding any documents or things responsive to these requests under a claim of work product, privilege or other protection, Defendant shall produce a privilege log in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(1)(C). If Defendant intends to use any such documents or things at trial, Defendant shall produce them. Request for Production No. 21: The motions are denied as to this request. The request is confusing and not limited in time or as to subject matter. Request for Production No. 22: The motions are granted as to this request to the extent that it requests production of any insurance policy which may provide coverage to the Defendant for Plaintiff's claims, and Defendant shall produce same. Otherwise, the motions are denied as to this request. Request for Production No. 23: The motions are denied as to this request at this time. Request for Production No. 24 and 25: The motions are denied as to these requests on the grounds that they are overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Request for Production No. 27: The motions are granted as to this request to the extent that Defendant shall produce all expert reports required to be produced by and in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and L.U.Civ.R. 26(a)(2) and any responsive documents and things which Defendant intends to use at trial. Otherwise, the motions are denied as to this request. Request for Production No. 28: The motions are granted as to this request. Defendant shall produce all documents responsive to this request. Defendant shall serve all supplemental interrogatory responses and produce all documents required by this order on or before May 27, 2011. SO ORDERED on the 12th day of May, 2011.