Miller v. Legacy Bank
Miller v. Legacy Bank
2023 WL 5737806 (W.D. Okla. 2023)
May 10, 2023
DeGiusti, Timothy D., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court denied multiple motions filed by Plaintiff Marquise Miller regarding ESI, including a motion for entry of default and default judgment, two motions to compel, and three motions to alter or amend judgment. The Court cited its inherent power to reconsider interlocutory rulings and the lack of grounds for reconsideration in denying these motions. The Court also warned against further excessive filings, as Plaintiff had already filed 22 discovery-related motions.
Additional Decisions
MARQUISE MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
LEGACY BANK, Defendant
v.
LEGACY BANK, Defendant
Case No. CIV-20-946-D
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Filed May 10, 2023
Counsel
Marquise Miller, Edmond, OK, Pro Se.Andrew L. Walding, Walding Law PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, Jamie L. Bloyd, Robert E. Norman, Cheek & Falcone PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant.
DeGiusti, Timothy D., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 On April 5, 2023, the Court denied a motion for entry of default filed by Plaintiff Marquise Miller. See 4/5/2023 Order [Doc. No. 180]. Two days later, the Court denied two motions to compel which were also filed by Plaintiff. See 4/7/2023 Order [Doc. No. 183]. Plaintiff subsequently filed three motions, labeled as “motions to alter or amend judgment,” in which he argues that the Court erred when it denied his motion for entry of default and his motions to compel. See [Doc. Nos. 201-203]. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motions to alter or amend judgment are DENIED.
“A district court always has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory rulings.” Warren v. Am. Bankers Ins. of FL, 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). “Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment [Doc. No. 171]
As noted, Plaintiff previously filed a motion for entry of default and default judgment. See Mot. for Default [Doc. No. 171]. In it, he requested “judgment in the amount of 62.3 million dollars as a matter of law.” Id. at 16. This request was based on Defendant's alleged failure to fulfill its discovery obligations. Because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the criteria necessary to enter default judgment, his motion was denied. Although Plaintiff disputes the Court's ruling, he fails to identify any grounds which warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider its prior ruling; Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment [Doc. No. 203] is DENIED.
II. Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel [Doc. Nos. 114]
Next, the Court addresses Plaintiff's first motion to compel, which was previously denied. In it, Plaintiff again requested “judgment in the amount of 62.3 million dollars as a sanction against Defendant for displaying a pattern of ignoring discovery rules consistently.” Pl.’s First Mot. to Compel [Doc. No. 114]. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's denial based on (1) the Court's alleged mischaracterization of an interrogatory request at issue; (2) the Court's alleged failure to address certain requests for production at issue; and (3) the Court's allegedly incorrect conclusion that Defendant's initial disclosures complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv).[1]
First, the Court addresses Plaintiff's interrogatory 17(H). Defendant, as part of its loan-approval process, conducted a “visual inspection” of the property for which Plaintiff sought a loan. In a response to an earlier interrogatory, Defendant noted that its personnel, after conducting a “visual inspection,” determined:
*2 [T]he scope of rehabilitation of 2110 N. Lottie was a factor warranting denial of Plaintiff's loan request because the property had been abandoned for a number of years, was in disrepair and was seriously dated.” See Def.’s Resp. Br., Ex. 4 [Doc. No. 130-4] at 8.
Plaintiff prefaced a subsequent interrogatory by stating that “[a]ll questions in these subparts are in relation to” the above statement from Defendant. Id. He proceeded to ask “[h]ow old was the allegedly dated item(s)?” See id. at 9 (Plaintiff's interrogatory 17(H)). In its response, Defendant stated: “The Oklahoma County Assessor website shows structures on 2110 N. Lottie were constructed in 1925.” See id., Ex. 2 [Doc. No. 130-2] at 6. Although Plaintiff apparently takes issue with Defendant's response, absent specificity regarding which “items” Plaintiff was purportedly referring to, a response regarding the date of the structures on the property at issue is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to revisit its conclusion that Defendant's response was satisfactory.
Turning to the requests for production at issue,[2] Plaintiff, in his first motion to compel, argued that “Defendant waive[d] any objections due to their untimely responses.” Pl.’s First Mot. to Compel at 4. Now, in his motion to alter or amend judgment, Plaintiff claims that it “does not appear that the Court addresse[d] these requests for production.” See Mot. to Alter or Amend Judgment [Doc. No. 201] at 5. However, the Court, in its order denying Plaintiff's first motion to compel, specifically discussed the timeliness of Defendant's responses. See 4/7/2023 Order at 3 (discussing timeliness of Defendant's responses). Thus, reconsideration is inappropriate on this basis.
Finally, the Court sees no reason to revisit its conclusion that Defendant's initial disclosures complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment [Doc. No. 201] must be DENIED.
III. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 147]
As with his first motion to compel, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision denying Plaintiff's second motion to compel. In his second motion to compel, Plaintiff sought an order compelling Defendant to answer certain interrogatories after Defendant objected on the ground that the interrogatories exceeded the number permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As noted by the Court, Plaintiff's interrogatories, in total, were comprised of 117 sub-parts. After reviewing the nature and character of the interrogatories served by Plaintiff, the Court concluded that Defendant's objection was substantiated, as Plaintiff had exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
Now, Plaintiff argues that Defendant, by answering earlier interrogatories, waived its right to object to any subsequent interrogatories, including the interrogatories at issue. In support of his position, Plaintiff cites case law which generally stands for the proposition that, when a party asserts an objection, but also provides a response which is “subject to” the stated objection, the objection is waived. See Pl.’s Mot. to Alter or Amend [Doc. No. 202] at 3-4. Plaintiff argues that his cited case law “made it clear that [Defendant] waived their objections to discovery by giving conditional responses and/or answering them without any objections.” Id.
*3 Plaintiff's cited case law is inapposite. Indeed, in its responses to the interrogatories at issue, Defendant “objects ... as [the interrogatory] exceeds the number permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Def.’s Resp. Br., Ex. 4 [Doc. No. 163-4] at 4-7. On the basis of this objection, and others, Defendant did not answer the interrogatories at issue. Plaintiff has failed to identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence previously unavailable, or any clear error. See Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment [Doc. No. 202] is DENIED.
The Court, to this point, has been clear that “failure to strictly adhere to proper discovery procedures, and the needless filing of excessive and/or ill-conceived discovery motions, may result in the imposition of sanctions, to include an award of attorney fees against an offending party.” See 11/18/2022 Order [Doc. No. 101] (denying ten discovery-related motions filed by Plaintiff).
Despite the Court's warning, Plaintiff has since filed twenty-two discovery-related motions since late November:
1. Three motions to compel, see [Doc. Nos. 114, 147, 175];
2. Five motions to quash, see [Doc. Nos. 111, 122, 123, 124, 125];
3. A motion for entry of default based on discovery-related conduct, see [Doc. No. 171];
5. Two motions for sanctions for bad faith conduct, see [Doc. No. 146, 207];
6. A motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, see [Doc. No. 112];
8. Seven motions to alter or amend judgment, see [Doc. No. 187, 188, 189, 190, 201, 202, 203].
The Court, again, reminds the parties that the repeated, needless filing of excessive and/or ill-conceived discovery motions may result in the imposition of sanctions, to include attorney fees against the offending party.
Plaintiff's motions to alter or amend judgment [Doc. Nos. 201-203] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2023.
Footnotes
These requests are labeled as requests for production 7 through 41. See Pl.’s First Mot. to Compel at 4-9.
Specifically, Plaintiff argued that Defendant's allegedly late response to his motion for summary judgment, in which he sought damages of 62.3 million dollars, required the Court to consider the motion “uncontested.” See Mot. to Strike at 6.