The opinion of the court was delivered by: Audrey G. Fleissig United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 14 (Doc. 40).
Under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move for a motion compelling disclosure or discovery if "a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33." A motion to compel "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." Id.
Plaintiff Starsha Monet Sewell, pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract by Defendant Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc. Defendant served Plaintiff with its First Set of Interrogatories on November 9, 2010, and received Plaintiff's objections to its Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 14 on December 21, 2010. In accordance with Rule 37(a) and E.D. Mo. L.R. 3.04(a), the parties conferred in good faith on January 4, 2011, in an attempt to resolve their disputes, but were unable to reach an accord.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant's motion and compel Plaintiff to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 14.
"Identify your formal education, including the name of each institution you attended, dates of attendance, subjects studied, names and dates of degrees earned, and nature of all vocational training.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative and burdensome to the extent that it calls for documents already produced to Defendant in response to Defendant's June 22, 2009 employment application, where the Plaintiff included academic transcripts, a hand written employment application, and Resume. Documents already produced will not be produced again."
Discussion Defendant argues that any information contained in Plaintiff's employment application is over 18 months old, and was not complete. Moreover, Plaintiff's employment application was not completed under oath. Because Plaintiff's employment application was not completed under oath, the Court will compel Plaintiff to respond to Interrogatory No. 1.
"Identify whether you have ever been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty to, or have pleaded nolo contendere to a felony or misdemeanor . . . ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this request as duplicative and burdensome to the extent that it calls for documents already produced to Defendant in response to Defendant's background investigation, conducted prior to hiring the Plaintiff . . .."
Discussion Defendant argues that, similar to Interrogatory No. 1, any background check performed on Plaintiff is over 18 months old, and it also would not have covered all jurisdictions. Moreover, the results of any background check were not provided under oath. Because the results of any background check were not provided under oath, the Court will compel Plaintiff to respond to Interrogatory No. 2.
"State whether you have ever been a plaintiff in a lawsuit besides this ...