Frught Motion To Compel
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Frught Motion To Compel as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,065
- Pages: 3
Case 2:07-cv-05069-SRD-JCW
Document 38
Filed 05/27/2009
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEVEN FRUGHT ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 07-5069
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
SECTION “K” (2)
ORDER ON MOTIONS APPEARANCES: None (on the briefs) MOTIONS:
(1) (2)
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order to Limit Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition, Record Doc. No. 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, Record Doc. No. 27
O R D E R E D: (1) : DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, as provided herein. All of State Farm’s objections to Topics Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are overruled. Discovery concerning these topics is highly relevant and clearly calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The topics are in no way vague or unduly burdensome. If State Farm persists in the position taken in its motion papers that it has no knowledge concerning Topics Nos. 3 and 4, despite the evidence presented by plaintiff to the contrary, it should produce a corporate representative to say so under oath, so that the witness may be impeached, if plaintiff can do so. The motion is granted in limited part as to Topic No. 6, only in that this topic is limited to the relationship between Worley and State Farm, if any, in connection with claims arising from Hurricane Katrina. All other objections to this topic are overruled, except the objection that confidential, proprietary or trade secret information may be the subject of this testimony. As to such information, the following protective order applies: State Farm may designate any confidential, proprietary or trade secret information provided during the deposition in accordance with this order as confidential, and all such testimony must be kept confidential and used only for purposes of this litigation and must
Case 2:07-cv-05069-SRD-JCW
Document 38
Filed 05/27/2009
Page 2 of 3
not be disclosed to any one except parties to this litigation, the parties' counsel of record and experts retained in connection with this litigation. All persons to whom such information is disclosed must sign an affidavit that must be filed into the record, agreeing to the terms of the protective order and submitting to the jurisdiction of this court for enforcement of those terms. In all other respects, the motion is denied as to Topic No. 6.
(2) : GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as provided herein. As a threshold matter, I note that the opposition memorandum submitted by State Farm appears to have nothing to do with this motion. The opposition memorandum refers to Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 10, but no such requests are at issue in the motion, either by numerical designation or by content as described in State Farm’s opposition memorandum. Rather, the motion seeks further responses to plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of plaintiffs’ Third Request for Production. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 1. All objections are overruled. However, State Farm’s obligation in responding to this request is only to produce those responsive materials that are within its possession, custody or control. It cannot be compelled to produce materials which it certifies are not in its possession, custody or control. If by the final sentence in its current response, State Farm means to say that it has no responsive materials in its possession, custody or control, it must clearly say so, without objection, in a new written response, signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). If it has any such materials, they must be produced. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 3, subject to the protective order contained herein. The request seeks information that is relevant to the credibility of the subject adjuster. All objections to this request are overruled, except the objection that confidential, proprietary or trade secret information may be responsive to this request. As to such materials, the same protective order imposed above as to Topic No. 6 in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice also applies to designated confidential, proprietary or trade secret information produced by State Farm in response to this request. State Farm must provide a new written response clearly stating, without objection, that all materials responsive to this request are being produced, subject to the protective order contained herein. The motion is denied as to Request No. 5. This request is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative” of the materials sought in Request No. 3, and the motion is therefore denied as to Request No. 5, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). The motion is granted as to Request No. 6, for the same reasons and subject to the same conditions set forth above in connection with Requests Nos. 1 and 3.
2
Case 2:07-cv-05069-SRD-JCW
Document 38
Filed 05/27/2009
Page 3 of 3
The motion is granted as to Request No. 7. All objections are overruled. State Farm must provide a new written response to this request clearly stating either that all responsive materials in its possession, custody or control are being produced or that it has no responsive materials in its possession, custody or control. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that State Farm must make every effort to provide plaintiff with all responsive materials required by this order, together with its new written responses, prior to the scheduled Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, but in no event later than within ten (10) days of entry of this order. Production of responsive materials required by this order after the scheduled Rule 30(b)(6) deposition may result in an order requiring that supplemental deposition testimony be provided. The motion is denied insofar as it seeks an award of attorneys fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C) provides: “If the motion [to compel] is granted in part and denied in part, the court may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” The motion has been granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ argument that one or more of defendant’s responses are “incredible” is not sufficient to establish that a sanctionable violation of Rule 26(g) has occurred at this time. Under these circumstances, I find that a just apportionment of fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion is that each side should bear its own.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this
27th
day of May, 2009.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Document 38
Filed 05/27/2009
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEVEN FRUGHT ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 07-5069
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
SECTION “K” (2)
ORDER ON MOTIONS APPEARANCES: None (on the briefs) MOTIONS:
(1) (2)
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order to Limit Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition, Record Doc. No. 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, Record Doc. No. 27
O R D E R E D: (1) : DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, as provided herein. All of State Farm’s objections to Topics Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are overruled. Discovery concerning these topics is highly relevant and clearly calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The topics are in no way vague or unduly burdensome. If State Farm persists in the position taken in its motion papers that it has no knowledge concerning Topics Nos. 3 and 4, despite the evidence presented by plaintiff to the contrary, it should produce a corporate representative to say so under oath, so that the witness may be impeached, if plaintiff can do so. The motion is granted in limited part as to Topic No. 6, only in that this topic is limited to the relationship between Worley and State Farm, if any, in connection with claims arising from Hurricane Katrina. All other objections to this topic are overruled, except the objection that confidential, proprietary or trade secret information may be the subject of this testimony. As to such information, the following protective order applies: State Farm may designate any confidential, proprietary or trade secret information provided during the deposition in accordance with this order as confidential, and all such testimony must be kept confidential and used only for purposes of this litigation and must
Case 2:07-cv-05069-SRD-JCW
Document 38
Filed 05/27/2009
Page 2 of 3
not be disclosed to any one except parties to this litigation, the parties' counsel of record and experts retained in connection with this litigation. All persons to whom such information is disclosed must sign an affidavit that must be filed into the record, agreeing to the terms of the protective order and submitting to the jurisdiction of this court for enforcement of those terms. In all other respects, the motion is denied as to Topic No. 6.
(2) : GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as provided herein. As a threshold matter, I note that the opposition memorandum submitted by State Farm appears to have nothing to do with this motion. The opposition memorandum refers to Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 10, but no such requests are at issue in the motion, either by numerical designation or by content as described in State Farm’s opposition memorandum. Rather, the motion seeks further responses to plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of plaintiffs’ Third Request for Production. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 1. All objections are overruled. However, State Farm’s obligation in responding to this request is only to produce those responsive materials that are within its possession, custody or control. It cannot be compelled to produce materials which it certifies are not in its possession, custody or control. If by the final sentence in its current response, State Farm means to say that it has no responsive materials in its possession, custody or control, it must clearly say so, without objection, in a new written response, signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). If it has any such materials, they must be produced. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 3, subject to the protective order contained herein. The request seeks information that is relevant to the credibility of the subject adjuster. All objections to this request are overruled, except the objection that confidential, proprietary or trade secret information may be responsive to this request. As to such materials, the same protective order imposed above as to Topic No. 6 in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice also applies to designated confidential, proprietary or trade secret information produced by State Farm in response to this request. State Farm must provide a new written response clearly stating, without objection, that all materials responsive to this request are being produced, subject to the protective order contained herein. The motion is denied as to Request No. 5. This request is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative” of the materials sought in Request No. 3, and the motion is therefore denied as to Request No. 5, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). The motion is granted as to Request No. 6, for the same reasons and subject to the same conditions set forth above in connection with Requests Nos. 1 and 3.
2
Case 2:07-cv-05069-SRD-JCW
Document 38
Filed 05/27/2009
Page 3 of 3
The motion is granted as to Request No. 7. All objections are overruled. State Farm must provide a new written response to this request clearly stating either that all responsive materials in its possession, custody or control are being produced or that it has no responsive materials in its possession, custody or control. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that State Farm must make every effort to provide plaintiff with all responsive materials required by this order, together with its new written responses, prior to the scheduled Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, but in no event later than within ten (10) days of entry of this order. Production of responsive materials required by this order after the scheduled Rule 30(b)(6) deposition may result in an order requiring that supplemental deposition testimony be provided. The motion is denied insofar as it seeks an award of attorneys fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C) provides: “If the motion [to compel] is granted in part and denied in part, the court may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” The motion has been granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ argument that one or more of defendant’s responses are “incredible” is not sufficient to establish that a sanctionable violation of Rule 26(g) has occurred at this time. Under these circumstances, I find that a just apportionment of fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion is that each side should bear its own.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this
27th
day of May, 2009.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Related Documents
Frught Motion To Compel
May 2020 17
Frught Mtn To Compel Memo
May 2020 6
Motion To Compel
June 2020 13
Lausd Motion To Compel
November 2019 33
Motion To Compel Template
May 2020 21