IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION

Medina Bright-Jamison, ) Civil Action No. 9:21-cv-02246-RMG ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER AND OPINION Colette A. Haq a/k/a Collete A. Haq, ) Jamshed U. Haq, Thomas Ridgeway, ) Vacation Rental Pros Property ) Management, LLC, and Hilton Head ) Rentals & Golf, Inc., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Before the Court is Defendant Vacation Rental Pros Property Management, LLC’s (“moving Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Medina Bright-Jamison’s responses to its Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Dkt. No. 39). On October 6, 2021, counsel for moving Defendant served Plaintiff’s counsel with the discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 39-1). Plaintiff’s responses were due on November 7, 2021. Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension to respond to the discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 39-2). On November 11, 2021, counsel for moving Defendant extended the deadline for Plaintiff to serve discovery responses until November 29, 2021. (Dkt. No. 39-2). Moving Defendant represents that Plaintiff failed to serve responses by this date. On December 6, 2021, counsel for moving Defendant granted Plaintiff an additional ten-day extension to serve discovery responses. (Dkt. No. 39-3). Moving Defendant represents that Plaintiff has not served discovery responses to date. (Dkt. Nos. 39; 41). On December 20, 2021, moving Defendant filed a motion to compel seeking an Order compelling Plaintiff to respond to moving Defendant’s discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 39). The Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due on January 4, 2022. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition. On January 6, 2022, the Court entered a text order instructing moving Defendant to file a status report informing the Court as to whether the motion is moot or whether moving Defendant still seeks the relief sought in the motion. (Dkt. No. 40). Later the same day, moving Defendant filed a status report indicating the request for relief remains unchanged as

Plaintiff has not served the requested discovery responses. (Dkt. No. 41). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the motion to compel. If a party declines to answer an interrogatory or request for production, the serving party “may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). An evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response, “must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). District courts have “wide latitude in controlling discovery and [their] rulings will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Ardrey v. United Parcel Service,

, 683 (4th Cir. 1986); In re MI Windows & Doors, Inc. Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 2:12-mn-00001,

, at * 1

(D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2013). As the moving Defendant represents the Plaintiff has not served discovery responses and Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion, Defendant Vacation Rental Pros Management, LLC’s motion to compel is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 39). Plaintiff shall serve responses to Defendant Vacation Rental Pros Management, LLC’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on or before January 21, 2022. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard M. Gergel Richard M. Gergel United States District Judge January 11, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina