UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CASA GRANDE HOMES, INC., ) an Oklahoma Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-779-G ) MICHEL CÔTÉ et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Now before the Court is Defendants Michel Côté, C&S Enterprises (Hawkesbury) Ltd., and Ray Air Maintenance, Inc.’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 23). Defendants represent that Plaintiff Casa Grande Homes, Inc. has not responded to Defendants’ First Set of Discovery Requests. See id. at 1-2. Accordingly, Defendants request that Plaintiff be compelled to respond to the discovery requests, a determination that Defendants’ Requests for Admission are deemed admitted, and a determination that Plaintiff has waived the right to object to Defendants’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production. See id. at 1; id. Ex. 1, Defs.’ First Set of Disc. Reqs. (Doc. No. 23-1) at 5-11. Plaintiff has not filed a response within the time allowed by this Court’s Local Rules or sought additional time to do so. Therefore, the Court deems Defendants’ Motion confessed as to the factual representations made therein. See LCvR 7.1(g). Plaintiff having offered no opposition, Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve responses to the Interrogatories and produce documents and information responsive to the Requests for Production in the First Set of Discovery Requests upon Defendant within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. The Court FINDS that, based on Plaintiff's lack of response, the matters specified in the Requests for Admission in the First Set of Discovery Requests are deemed admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3). Further, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff has waived any grounds to object to the Interrogatories or the Requests for Production in the First Set of Discovery Requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4), 34(b)(2)(B); In re Mary Jane Mathis Rutherford Marital Tr., No. CIV-23-917-R,

, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2024) (‘[W]hile Rule 34 does not contain an explicit waiver provision for failure to produce or object, this Court has agreed with sister jurisdictions and held that a failure to timely object to requests for production constitutes waiver.”). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are entitled to their “reasonable expenses incurred” in preparing and submitting the Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 23), “including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Ifthe parties cannot agree on the amount of these expenses within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendants may submit to the Court an itemization of its claimed expenses, and Plaintiff may respond within ten (10) days thereafter. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2025.

(Vaal B. Kodo United States District Judge