WILSON v. FAIRFIELD INN SUITES - MARRIOTT, RDU
1:16-cv-00899
M.D.N.C.Apr 25, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Nathan E. Wilson sued Fairfield Inn Suites–Marriott under the ADA alleging disability discrimination.
- Defendant served interrogatories and document requests on December 30, 2016; responses were due within 30 days but plaintiff did not respond.
- Plaintiff moved multiple times for extensions and for appointment of counsel; the court denied prior extension and counsel requests.
- Defendant moved to compel after conferral efforts; plaintiff then filed a third motion seeking a 90-day extension and raised assorted objections (need for counsel, fear of answering under oath, unrelated FEMA/NCIC matters).
- The magistrate judge found plaintiff offered no particularized, timely objections or new facts showing diligence or excusable neglect, granted the motion to compel, and denied the extension.
- The court ordered plaintiff to respond by May 12, 2017, warned of possible dismissal for noncompliance, and required plaintiff to pay defendant’s reasonable fees for bringing the motion (with a briefing schedule for disputes over reasonableness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to compel discovery responses | Plaintiff sought more time and asserted objections (need for counsel, fear of criminal exposure from sworn answers, unrelated FEMA/NCIC disputes) | Defendant argued plaintiff failed to respond as required and ignored conferral requests; discovery requests were proper | Court granted motion to compel; plaintiff must answer by deadline and risks dismissal for noncompliance |
| Extension of discovery deadline (Rule 16 good-cause) | Plaintiff requested a 90-day extension citing disability, need for counsel, and other pending matters | Defendant opposed further extension because prior extensions were denied and discovery schedule would be disrupted | Court denied extension: plaintiff failed to show diligence or good cause under Rule 16 |
| Excusable neglect for late motion (Rule 6) | Plaintiff filed extension after statutory deadline and argued practical difficulties | Defendant argued plaintiff did not act diligently and sought untimely relief | Court found excusable neglect not shown (Pioneer factors weigh against relief) |
| Award of expenses/fees for motion to compel (Rule 37) | Plaintiff offered no justification to avoid sanctions | Defendant requested fees and submitted affidavit showing conferral attempts | Court required plaintiff to pay defendant’s reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees for the motion unless he successfully contests reasonableness per court’s schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468 (4th Cir. 1972) (interrogatory answers must be given under oath)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (party resisting discovery bears persuasion burden)
- VICA Coal Co., Inc. v. Crosby, 212 F.R.D. 498 (S.D. W. Va. 2003) (objections to interrogatories must be specific)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (factors for excusable neglect inquiry)
- Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530 (4th Cir. 1996) (excusable neglect is difficult to demonstrate)