*1 The above-captioned action was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for determination of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions (“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions”) (ECF No. 28).[1] Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant appeared before the undersigned on June 12, 2019 for a hearing on the motions. Upon consideration of the motions; Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (“Defendant's Response”) (ECF No. 35); Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (“Plaintiff's Reply”) (ECF No. 36); the proffers and arguments of the parties during the hearing, and the entire record herein, the undersigned will deny both motions.

The undersigned does so for the reasons offered by the Defendant, both orally and in writing. More specifically, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff has failed to carry the burden of the movant to demonstrate that the opposing party has failed to answer the movant's interrogatories and to produce documents responsive to the movant's requests for production of documents. See, e.g., Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 322 F.R.D. 1, 5-6 (D.D.C. 2017) (“The party that brings the motion to compel bears the initial burden of ‘proving that the opposing party's answers were incomplete,’ ... and ‘explaining how the requested information is relevant.’ ”) (citations and quotations omitted); Doe v. D.C., 248 F. Supp. 3d 186, 190 (D.D.C. 2017) (“The moving party bears the burden of proving that the discovery responses were incomplete.”).

Additionally, the undersigned observes that Plaintiff, during the hearing, acknowledged that he has no evidence of the alleged destruction of any evidence by Defendant, see Plaintiff's Reply at 2, 12. In like manner, the undersigned observes that Plaintiff acknowledged that his contention that Defendant's answers to the interrogatories which are the subject of the motions are incomplete, see Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions at 7, 10, 18, also is predicated upon his belief that there must be something missing from Defendant's answers to those interrogatories. However, a movant's mere speculation concerning an omission of information from an interrogatory answer, or speculation concerning the existence of documents which were not included in a production of documents, does not provide a basis for the entry of orders compelling discovery and imposing sanctions. See Abt v. Jewell, 303 F.R.D. 166, 172 (D.D.C. 2014) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel where “[plaintiff] had an obligation to demonstrate affirmatively that [d]efendant failed to produce discoverable information,” and plaintiff “made no showing on th[e] issue[.]”).

*2 It is, therefore, this 13th day of June, 2019,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 28) is DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 33) are DENIED AS MOOT.[2]