*1 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs Tinnye Haynes, Kathy Porter, and Sharon Dickens's (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Responses to Discovery Requests. (Doc. 32). This case is before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Parties’ consent in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (Doc. 15). After due consideration, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Responses to Discovery Requests shall be GRANTED. (Doc. 32).

The case arises from events which occurred throughout the course of Plaintiffs’ employment as Home Care Workers for Defendant Jan J. Otho, doing business as Kind Keepers (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). On April 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201. (Id. at 1). According to the Complaint, Defendant “fail[ed] to pay its Home Care Workers for all hours worked and for overtime.” (Id.). Defendant answered the Complaint on June 7, 2016. (Doc. 12). On October 11, 2016, the parties assembled for a status conference before the Court. The Court allowed Defendant's attorney to withdraw as counsel and Defendant to proceed pro se. The Court advised Defendant of her obligations as a pro se litigant in this action.

The Court also ordered Defendant to make the initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) before November 1, 2016. (Doc. 26). To date, Defendant has not complied with this order. On October 26, 2016, Plaintiffs served a set of interrogatories and requests for production on Defendant. (Doc. 32 at 2). Defendant has not responded to these discovery requests. After unsuccessfully attempting to communicate with Defendant, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel on January 6, 2017. (Doc. 32 at 2–4, 7). As of this date, Defendant has not responded to the motion.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. However, a court may limit discovery if “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006). Once the moving party establishes that the materials requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted. Id.

*2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) allows a discovering party, on notice to other parties and all affected persons, to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” The rule authorizes the Court to compel cooperation in discovery, and empowers the Court to impose monetary sanctions for “the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The rule also clearly enunciates that a movant's motion “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

A. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests

Since answering the Complaint on June 7, 2016, Defendant has failed to provide any discovery to Plaintiffs despite their many requests. (Doc. 32 at 4). Plaintiffs argue that “Defendant's inexcusable foot-dragging and lack of responsiveness have resulted in Plaintiffs being unable to make any progress with this case.” (Id. at 4–5). Although Defendant hired an attorney to assist her in responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests (Doc. 32-1 at 28, 31), Defendant has failed to respond in any meaningful way to these requests. (Id. at 1–2). Defendant has failed to produce any discovery, object to any of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, or communicate in any manner with the Court.

Because Defendant has failed to respond in any manner to the discovery requests promulgated by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that any objections to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production are waived. Roca Res. Co., Inc. v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P., No. P:14-CV-00085-DAE-DC, 2015 WL 12746117, at *8 (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2015) (citing In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156) (The Fifth Circuit stated that “as a general rule, when a party fails to object timely to [...] production requests or other discovery efforts, objections thereto are waived.”). Moreover, this is the second time the Court has ordered Defendant to make the initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

B. Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorney Fees

Plaintiffs request the Court to award expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in the filing of the motion to compel. (Doc. 32 at 6). Under Rule 37, a party whose conduct necessitated the motion to enforce discovery generally is required to pay the movant's reasonable expenses and attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, payment should not be ordered if the opposing party's nondisclosure or objection was “substantially justified.” Id. If a motion to compel is denied, the Court must require the movant to pay the non-movant its reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).

The Court has previously ordered Defendant to make her initial disclosures. Additionally, Defendant has failed to object to any of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The Court finds that based on this record, Defendant does not have legitimate concerns regarding the initial disclosures, interrogatories, and requests for production. Furthermore, Defendant did not work with Plaintiff in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute without Court intervention. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for expenses and attorney fees incurred in the preparation of this motion is GRANTED.

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED. (Doc. 32). The Court's rulings are summarized as follows:

It is so ORDERED.