Defendant SLS seeks partial reconsideration of the Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel. Although the Court granted the motion to compel in its entirety, SLS seeks reconsideration only “to the extent that it requires SLS to answer Interrogatories that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Docket no. 52, ¶ 3. Alternatively, SLS requests the Court “clarify its Order requiring SLS to disclose private information regarding the non-party employees who are not designated as Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses.” Id.

As noted in the Court's prior order, the motion to compel was granted as unopposed because Defendant failed to file a response within the time period prescribed by the rules. Docket no. 47. SLS now claims that “counsel inadvertently miscalendared the response deadline.” SLS further states it was “not a willful act but one of excusable neglect or inadvertent mistake.” Docket no. 52, pp. 1, 2. However, this is the full extent of Defendant's explanation – a mere recitation without any supporting facts. “Generally, calendaring errors are insufficient to establish excusable neglect.” Byford v. Fontenot, 2020 WL 1815871, at *2 (S.D. Tex. April 9, 2020); see also Gonzales v. State Fair of Tex., 235 F.3d 1339, at *1-2 (5th Cir. 2000) (calendaring mistake not excused). This is especially true when no supporting facts are provided. Cf. Juarez v. Target Corp., 2019 WL 919014, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2019) (generally counsel's negligence is insufficient to constitute excusable neglect; however, counsel provided evidence that he was suffering from a severe medical condition that impaired his cognitive abilities). Given the lack of evidence to support defense counsel's statement, considering the disruption to the discovery process in this case, and for the reasons further explained herein, the relief granted in the Court's order was warranted and will not be reconsidered.

Plaintiff served SLS with interrogatories and requests for production on January 19, 2021. As of March 12, 2021, SLS had not provided responses to most written discovery requests nor had SLS responded to the motion to compel. The Court ruled that the boilerplate objections were invalid and overruled. See Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 578 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (“General or boilerplate objections are invalid, objections to discovery must be made with specificity, and the responding party has the obligation to explain and support its objections.”). The Court further ordered SLS to answer each interrogatory, and subpart thereto, separately and completely, with specificity, and under oath. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), 33(b)(4); 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), 37(a)(4). More than three months has passed since being served with the interrogatories and despite being ordered to answer the interrogatories in their entirety and under oath, SLS has still failed to fully answer the interrogatories and has failed to do so under oath as required by the rules and the Court's order – without explanation.

*2 SLS now broadly requests reconsideration based on relevancy, but still fails to substantiate any of its objections, i.e., explain with specificity how or to what extent the interrogatories or subparts thereof seek information that is not relevant. See Samsung Electronics America Inc. v. Chung, 325 F.R.D. 578, 590 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (“The party resisting discovery must show specifically how each discovery request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable.”) SLS further asserts that the Court's prior order “does not contain a ruling as to the relevance of several of Plaintiff's written discovery requests” – without stating which requests it is referring to. Docket no. 52, ¶ 6. Of the 22 interrogatories propounded, SLS lodged general, boilerplate relevancy objections to 18 interrogatories. Docket no. 40-2. To date, SLS has not substantiated any of its relevancy objections to those 18 interrogatories. Moreover, the Court clearly stated in its prior order that all boilerplate objections were invalid and overruled – this included boilerplate objections on relevancy.

Alternatively, SLS seeks clarification regarding interrogatories that seek the identity of SLS employees. Again, SLS fails to state which interrogatories it is referring to, but broadly objects to disclosing information about employees on “privacy” grounds. SLS contends that such interrogatories are “akin to asking SLS to produce its employee personnel files.” Docket no. 52, ¶ 7. However, none of the interrogatories seek the “production of employee personnel files” or the type of information that raises privacy concerns. Interrogatory number one asks SLS to “identify all persons who you believe have knowledge of relevant facts and identify the issues upon which you believe they have knowledge.” Docket no. 40-2. SLS objected, inter alia, “based on privacy and security concerns.” Id. Disclosing the identity of persons with knowledge of relevant facts is required in every case, and this interrogatory is not objectionable. Interrogatory number four asks SLS to “identify the SLS representatives who spoke with Plaintiff, the dates and times you spoke with Plaintiff, and the general nature of each conversation.” Docket no. 40-2. Among other boilerplate objections, SLS cited “privacy and security concerns” and failed to provide the information. Id. This interrogatory is not objectionable and requesting the identification of those who spoke with Plaintiff does not raise privacy concerns. Interrogatory number six asks SLS to “identify, stating full name, last known address, and telephone number(s), all persons involved in research, evaluation, investigation, and/or preparing a response to Plaintiff's communications disputing SLS's collections and/or credit reporting.” Docket no. 40-2. Yet again, SLS cited “privacy and security concerns,” among other general objections, and did not provide the information. This interrogatory does not seek private or secure information and is not objectionable. Interrogatory numbers 13 and 14 also ask SLS to identify by name, job title, and job description, employees who performed investigations into the collection and credit reporting at issue in this case. SLS did not object based on privacy and/or security, but relied on other boilerplate objections and still refused to provide the information. Docket no. 40-2. This information is clearly discoverable. Rule 26(a)(1)(A) states that “a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties: (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information – along with the subjects of that information ...”. Local rule CV-26(b)(3) states that “to ‘identify’ means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known address, e-mail address, and telephone number, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment.” This is the information Plaintiff is seeking and the information is not “private or secure” – instead, it is clearly discoverable. Defendant should have disclosed the information months ago. Now, at the eleventh hour and after the Court already ordered SLS to “answer each interrogatory, and subpart thereto, separately and completely, with specificity, and under oath,” SLS seeks “clarification” and still refuses to provide this information. Instead, in its recently amended responses, SLS simply refers to documents and 67 recorded phone conversations which only provide the first name and employee identification number of the representatives who spoke with Plaintiff. See docket no. 53-1, answers to interrogatory numbers 1, 4, 6, 13, 14. These responses are deficient under the rules and deficient under the Court's prior order. SLS has superior knowledge, possession, custody, and control of such information and must provide it, rather than placing the burden on Plaintiff to sift through documents and 67 recorded phone calls (which by SLS's own admission will only provide first names of the employees). The information being sought is relevant and discoverable, and Defendant's motion for reconsideration (docket no. 52) is DENIED.

*3 Because Defendant has failed to comply with the rules, failed to comply with the Court's order, and refused to cooperate and engage in meaningful discovery, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (docket no. 51) is GRANTED. The email comments of counsel for SLS display the recalcitrance exhibited in this case:

Docket no. 54-1. This conduct is unacceptable for any officer of the Court and will not be tolerated. Thus, it is ORDERED that:

As previously ordered, and no later than May 7, 2021, Defendant SLS must answer each interrogatory, and subpart thereto, separately and completely, with specificity, and under oath. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), 33(b)(4); 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), 37(a)(4). To the extent SLS has not produced all documents responsive to each request, it must produce the entirety of the documents responsive to the requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv); 37(a)(4). To the extent SLS is withholding any documents under the attorney work product or attorney client privilege, it must produce a privilege log stating, with specificity, the nature of each document or communication, the date thereof, the persons involved in the communication (author(s)/recipient(s)) and the specific privilege being invoked. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). In response to interrogatory numbers 1, 4, 6, 13, and 14, Defendant SLS must provide all of the information requested and the burden will not be placed on Plaintiff to sift through documents and recordings of 67 phone calls.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), (b)(2)(C), (c)(1)(A), and (d)(3), SLS and its attorney, Branch M. Sheppard, shall jointly pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by Plaintiff in conferring or attempting to confer with defense counsel on written discovery matters and preparing and filing the motion to compel responses to written discovery (docket no. 40), the response in opposition to the motion to reconsider (docket no. 54), and the motion for sanctions (docket no. 51). Sanctions must be payable to HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS, P.C. and received by Plaintiff's counsel no later than May 21, 2021.[1]

SIGNED this 29 day of April, 2021.