John W. Primomo, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the motion to set aside the orders (docket no. 14, 17) that granted the defendant's motion to compel and imposed sanctions in conjunction with the motion to compel. Docket no. 20. The Court construes the motion under consideration to be a motion for reconsideration because it asks the Court to set aside its orders. Upon consideration, the Court will deny the motion.
The alternative course for plaintiff would be to file an appeal of the disputed orders entered by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Such an appeal is directed to the District Court, and plaintiff must show that the disputed rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).
Discussion
Defendant filed a motion to compel (docket no. 13), which the Court granted in an order (docket no. 14) filed November 16, 1998. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion in the motion under consideration, the Court considered plaintiff's response that was faxed to the District Clerk's office, but was not filed. The Court granted the motion to compel for the reasons set forth in that motion.
The Court will not discuss each of the disputed discovery request because the motion to compel was well supported. However, in order to provide plaintiff some explanation for the granting of relief as requested in the motion to compel, the Court will address some of the disputed discovery requests.
The Court notes that one of the disputed interrogatories that served as the basis for the motion to compel was a request for information regarding plaintiff's factual witnesses. Local Rule CV-33(c)(2) provides that the Court will not entertain any objection to such an interrogatory, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff responded to the interrogatory by indicating that defendant should refer to plaintiff's witnesses listed in the EEC hearing. Mot. Compel , Exh. 3, Interrogatory Number 3. Additionally, plaintiff's response to the motion to compel did not address any of the disputed interrogatories or requests for production. Thus, plaintiff failed to make a showing of exceptional circumstances, and the Court had to grant the motion to compel as to that interrogatory.
The Court also notes that plaintiff failed to provide specific information in response to an interrogatory seeking information as to plaintiff's claim for damages. In response to the interrogatory, plaintiff stated that he is seeking amounts permitted by Title VII. Mot. Compel , Exh. 3, Interrogatory Number 7. That interrogatory is also one of the type that has been approved by the Court, and no objections to such an interrogatory can be entertained unless there is a showing of exceptional circumstances. Local Rule CV-33(c)(2)(I). Plaintiff's response to the interrogatory failed to set forth any basis for the Court to find exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the Court had to grant the motion to compel as to that interrogatory.
The Court will not address the merits of the motion to compel as to each disputed interrogatory or request for production. Instead, the Court notes that the motion to compel plainly sets forth sufficient reasons for the relief requested in that motion. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration does not address each of the disputed discovery requests, so a discussion of each basis for granting the motion to compel is unnecessary.
For these reasons, the Court believes that the motion for reconsideration should be DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.