Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION LAKEISTA J. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, vs. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:11-CV-1315 CDP ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action is before me on the parties' cross-motions to compel. On November 27, 2012, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to appear for her deposition. Defendant contends that plaintiff has refused to be deposed "unless and until certain of her discovery requests were answered to her satisfaction." Plaintiff did not respond directly to defendant's motion, but on December 3, 2012, she filed her own motion to compel. In that motion, plaintiff requests that the court compel defendant to respond more fully to her interrogatories and requests for production of documents. I will address defendant's motion to compel first. I. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition

Under Rules 26(d)(2) and 30(a)(1), Fed. R. of Civ. P., defendant is entitled to depose plaintiff at any point during the discovery period. The Case Management Order I entered in this case makes clear that defendant may take plaintiff's deposition at any time

until April 25, 2013. Neither the Order nor the federal rules requires defendant to wait that long. Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with defendant's answers to her discovery requests is not a valid reason for refusing to be deposed. Accordingly, I will grant defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to appear at her deposition. Plaintiff should be advised that failing to appear for her deposition may lead to sanctions, including the dismissal of her complaint, see Setzke v. Whitmill, 241 Fed. Appx. 351, 352 (8th Cir. 2007), and payment of defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). II. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Certain Discovery Responses

In her motion to compel, plaintiff contends that defendant made invalid objections to certain interrogatories (Nos. 1

Download 4077.pdf

Missouri Law