United States District Court, D. Maryland
TONYA A. MACKIN
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. et al.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 16, 2018, Defendant Charles Schwab moved to compel
because Plaintiff Tonya Mackin refused to respond to its
discovery requests. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff was ordered to
provide full and complete responses to Defendant's
initial discovery requests. (ECF No. 18). On February 21,
Plaintiff sent Defendant an email with answers to some of
Defendant's requests. Defendant responded requesting
further details, and Plaintiff stated that the requests
sought “excessive [and] irrelevant
information[.]” (ECF No. 21-2, at 4).
April 24, 2018, Defendant filed a notice pursuant to Local
Rule 104.7. The notice stated that Defendant had alerted
Plaintiff to the motion to compel on March 9, and Plaintiff
had not provided a response. Defendant had called Plaintiff
and attempted to set-up a time to talk, but the efforts had
been unsuccessful. (ECF No. 21-1). Accordingly, Defendant
moved to compel. (ECF No. 21-2). Plaintiff has not responded.
to Fed. R. Civ.P. 26(b)(1), “Parties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense[.]” A party can
obtain discovery from an opposing party via serving an
interrogatory. An interrogatory “must, to the extent it
is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in
writing under oath, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3), and
“the person who makes the answer must sign them,
” Rule 33(b)(5). If a party has an objection, the party
must specifically state the grounds. Rule 33(b)(4).
can also obtain discovery by requesting that the opposing
party produce documents or allow documents to be inspected.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Under Rule 34, once one party requests the
production of a document, the other party must respond either
by producing the document, allowing its inspection, or
objecting to the production.
first interrogatory requests information about any person who
has knowledge related to the complaint. Plaintiff failed to
provide the information requested. Instead, she said that
Defendant is “aware of what took place[.]” (ECF
No. 21-2, at 5). This is a not a valid answer to an
interrogatory, and Plaintiff must provide a complete answer.
second interrogatory requests information about people with
whom Plaintiff has discussed the allegations including
details about who she talked to, when she talked to them, and
what they discussed. Plaintiff said it was largely the same
people as previously identified but did not provide any
information about what was discussed, when it was discussed,
or any other responsive information. (ECF No. 21-2, at 5).
third interrogatory requests information about people who
helped Plaintiff prepare answers to the interrogatories, the
fourth interrogatory requests information about people
Plaintiff has contacted about testifying, the seventh
interrogatory requests information about other legal actions
to which Plaintiff has been a party, the fourteenth
interrogatory requests information about whether Plaintiff
has filed for bankruptcy, the fifteenth interrogatory
requests information about health providers who Plaintiff has
seen for problems related to the complaint, the sixteenth
interrogatory requests information related to criminal
history, the seventeenth interrogatory request information
about internal grievances Plaintiff has filed, the eighteenth
interrogatory requests information about prior testimony in
legal proceedings, and the nineteenth interrogatory requests
information about any expert witnesses Plaintiff has engaged.
For all of these interrogatories, Plaintiff responded,
“N/A” or “Not Applicable.” Plaintiff
must provide full answers to these questions. If the answer
is that no one helped her prepare the answers, she has talked
to no one about testifying, she has never been a party to
litigation, she has never filed for bankruptcy, she has seen
no health providers, she has no criminal history, she has
never filed an internal grievance even though her complaint
alleges that she has, she has never testified in a legal
proceedings, and she has no experts that she plans to use,
then Plaintiff must state so explicitly.
fifth and sixth interrogatories request information relating
to the alleged damages including facts supporting the various
injuries, the types of damages sought, and the method for
calculating the damage figure related to the injuries.
Plaintiff provided the same answer for both questions. She
stated that her life was put in danger by not being properly
informed about the branch closing during Superstorm Sandy,
and, therefore, she is entitled to the statutory maximum. She
added that she lost a bonus and a month of earned vacation.
She did not specify the amount of the bonus or the value of
the earned vacation. Plaintiff must provide specific facts to
support the various injuries she alleges and the method for
calculating the damages related to those injuries. (ECF No.
21-2, at 6-7).
eighth interrogatory requests information about all income
received since 2006 including dates and the nature of the
source, and the eleventh interrogatory requests information
about times when Plaintiff has been unemployed and if she
received unemployment benefits. Plaintiff's answers
identify no source of money since 2013. Plaintiff appears to
state she was unemployed while she was in school but must do
so explicitly. Plaintiff finished school in 2017 and has
obtained employment, but she provides no information about
whether she receives a salary from her new job. (ECF No.
21-2, at 7, 8).
ninth interrogatory requests information about
Plaintiff's effort to obtain employment since leaving
Defendant. Plaintiff did not identify any efforts stating,
“Not available too many to obtain and provide used
various methods and some were out of state.” (ECF No.
21-2, at 8). Plaintiff is required to provide information on
her attempts to obtain employment. Even if she sent in
numerous job applications using different means, then she
must, to the best of her ability, list all of the
applications and what happened.
tenth interrogatory requests information about
Plaintiff's employment history including supervisors and
any reprimands. Plaintiff responded, “See resume
attached.” (ECF No. 21-2, at 9). ...