The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robin S. Rosenbaum United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Kramer Scientific Laboratory Products Corporation's Second Emergency Motion to Compel Defendant and Non-Party Lorena Rodriguez to Comply with the November 28, 2011, Order of the Court, for Clarification and for Sanctions [D.E. 29]. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant and Non-party Rodriguez's Response [D.E. 31], and the record and now grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion.
This case arose out of Defendant Golf Medical Corporation's ("Golf") alleged failure to pay for goods that Plaintiff Kramer Scientific Laboratory Products Corporation ("Kramer") delivered to it. See D.E. 1 at ¶ 1. Golf never responded to Kramer's Complaint, despite having been served with it. See D.E. 4. Consequently, Kramer obtained a default judgment against Golf. See D.E. 13. In the Amended Default Final Judgment, the Honorable William J. Zloch found Golf liable for breach of contract, conversion, open account, account stated, and goods sold, as alleged by Kramer in its Complaint. Id. at 1-2. As a result, Judge Zloch entered judgment for Kramer in the amount of $269,554.50, plus interest at the statutory rate. Id. at 3.
Subsequently, Kramer engaged in discovery in aid of execution. More specifically, on September 9, 2011, Kramer served its requests for production of documents, its first set of interrogatories, and a notice of taking the deposition of Golf, which was set for October 13, 2011. See D.E. 15 at ¶ 2; D.E. 15-1. Also on September 9, 2011, Kramer served Lorena Rodriguez, the wife of Golf's principal, a subpoena duces tecum to testify at a deposition scheduled for October 13, 2011. See D.E. 15 at ¶ 3; D.E. 15-1 at 47-50.
Although Golf's responses to Kramer's production requests and interrogatories were due on October 10, 2011, Golf never responded, sought an enlargement of time, or filed a motion to quash or for protective order. D.E. 15 at ¶¶ 4-5. The following day, counsel for the two parties exchanged e-mails, and Kramer offered to extend the deadline for the discovery responses until October 18, 2011, and the date of the depositions until October 20, 2011. Id. at ¶ 6. Counsel for Golf and Mrs. Rodriguez did not agree. Id. As a result, Kramer filed its original Motion to Compel discovery responses from Golf and the depositions of Golf and Mrs. Rodriguez..
On November 28, 2011, the Court held a hearing on Kramer's Motion. During the hearing, the Court asked counsel for Golf and Mrs. Rodriguez whether they had any basis for failing to respond to the discovery requests and to appear for deposition. Counsel for Golf forthrightly conceded that they did not and that Kramer's Motion was "well-founded."
Accordingly, following the November 28, 2011, hearing, the Court issued an Order of the same date. See D.E. 21. Under the terms of that Order and a follow-up Order that the Court issued on December 1, 2011 [See D.E. 28], Defendant Golf Medical Corporation was to have responded to Plaintiff's production requests and interrogatories by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 5, 2011, and Defendant and Mrs. Rodriguez were to have sat for deposition on Tuesday, December 13, 2011.
On the morning of December 5, counsel for Defendant asked counsel for Plaintiff whether she would agree to allow him until December 7 to deliver the documents responsive to the production requests. See D.E. 29-1 at 3. Counsel for Plaintiff responded, "I need them by tomorrow close of business at the latest. I am out [W]ednesday through [F]riday and I am swamped next [M]onday. I need them to review this weekend. Thanks." Id. at 2. In other words, counsel for Plaintiff indicated her need to review the documents responsive to the production requests before the depositions set for Golf and Mrs. Rodriguez, in light of her other work conflicts. Counsel for Defendant and Mrs. Rodriguez replied, "That'll work, thanks for your courtesy." Id. at 2.
When December 6 came, however, counsel for Defendant and Mrs. Rodriguez advised Plaintiff's attorney that there were almost 500 pages of responsive documents, rendering scanning and faxing unreasonable, in his view. See D.E. 29-1 at 7. Thus, at 1:56 p.m., defense counsel asked whether counsel for Plaintiff would agree to Defendant's sending of the materials by overnight delivery. Id. Because, Plaintiff's counsel explained, she would not be back to the office until Monday and, as she had previously noted, she was busy with another matter all day Monday, Plaintiff's counsel responded that overnight-delivery would not work and suggested delivery by a courier instead, offering to stay at the office that night as late as necessary for the courier to arrive. See id. at 6-7. Describing a courier as "unreasonable," defense counsel declined Plaintiff's counsel's suggestion and sent the materials by UPS for delivery on December 7. See id. at 5.
Returning to December 5, 2011, Golf provided Plaintiff with the discovery response to Plaintiff's production requests and with answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories. See D.E. 29 at ¶ 5.
The responses and answers, however, contained objections. Defendant asserts that it has good cause for making objections late, so it is not subject to the rule that provides for waiver of objections upon failure to respond timely to discovery requests. Finally, with regard to the documents sought from Mrs. Rodriguez through the subpoena duces tecum for her deposition, counsel for Mrs. Rodriguez stated that Mrs. Rodriguez would bring responsive documents or invoke objections at the deposition.
Based on this sequence of events, Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court requiring Golf to respond immediately to all of Plaintiff's outstanding production requests and interrogatories and to produce all responsive documents without withholding any on the basis of privilege or other objections. Plaintiff further asks this Court to order Mrs. Rodriguez to produce all documents requested in the subpoena ...