Beyond Standard Discovery: Drafting, Objecting, and Responding April 9, 2019 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. CBA Law Center New Britain, CT CT Bar Institute Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (General) NY: 2.0 CLE Credits (Skills) No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 44
44
Embed
Beyond Standard Discovery: Drafting, Objecting, and Responding
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Beyond Standard Discovery: Drafting, Objecting, and Responding
No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments.
Page 1 of 44
Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism As a lawyer I must strive to make our system of justice work fairly and efficiently. In order to carry out that responsibility, not only will I comply with the letter and spirit of the disciplinary standards applicable to all lawyers, but I will also conduct myself in accordance with the following Principles of Professionalism when dealing with my client, opposing parties, their counsel, the courts and the general public.
Civility and courtesy are the hallmarks of professionalism and should not be equated with weakness; I will endeavor to be courteous and civil, both in oral and in written communications;
I will not knowingly make statements of fact or of law that are untrue;
I will agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time or for waiver of procedural formalities when the legitimate interests of my client will not be adversely affected;
I will refrain from causing unreasonable delays;
I will endeavor to consult with opposing counsel before scheduling depositions and meetings and before rescheduling hearings, and I will cooperate with opposing counsel when scheduling changes are requested;
When scheduled hearings or depositions have to be canceled, I will notify opposing counsel, and if appropriate, the court (or other tribunal) as early as possible;
Before dates for hearings or trials are set, or if that is not feasible, immediately after such dates have been set, I will attempt to verify the availability of key participants and witnesses so that I can promptly notify the court (or other tribunal) and opposing counsel of any likely problem in that regard;
I will refrain from utilizing litigation or any other course of conduct to harass the opposing party;
I will refrain from engaging in excessive and abusive discovery, and I will comply with all reasonable discovery requests;
In depositions and other proceedings, and in negotiations, I will conduct myself with dignity, avoid making groundless objections and refrain from engaging I acts of rudeness or disrespect;
I will not serve motions and pleadings on the other party or counsel at such time or in such manner as will unfairly limit the other party’s opportunity to respond;
In business transactions I will not quarrel over matters of form or style, but will concentrate on matters of substance and content;
I will be a vigorous and zealous advocate on behalf of my client, while recognizing, as an officer of the court, that excessive zeal may be detrimental to my client’s interests as well as to the proper functioning of our system of justice;
While I must consider my client’s decision concerning the objectives of the representation, I nevertheless will counsel my client that a willingness to initiate or engage in settlement discussions is consistent with zealous and effective representation;
Where consistent with my client's interests, I will communicate with opposing counsel in an effort to avoid litigation and to resolve litigation that has actually commenced;
I will withdraw voluntarily claims or defense when it becomes apparent that they do not have merit or are superfluous;
I will not file frivolous motions;
I will make every effort to agree with other counsel, as early as possible, on a voluntary exchange of information and on a plan for discovery;
I will attempt to resolve, by agreement, my objections to matters contained in my opponent's pleadings and discovery requests;
In civil matters, I will stipulate to facts as to which there is no genuine dispute;
I will endeavor to be punctual in attending court hearings, conferences, meetings and depositions;
I will at all times be candid with the court and its personnel;
I will remember that, in addition to commitment to my client's cause, my responsibilities as a lawyer include a devotion to the public good;
I will endeavor to keep myself current in the areas in which I practice and when necessary, will associate with, or refer my client to, counsel knowledgeable in another field of practice;
I will be mindful of the fact that, as a member of a self-regulating profession, it is incumbent on me to report violations by fellow lawyers as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct;
I will be mindful of the need to protect the image of the legal profession in the eyes of the public and will be so guided when considering methods and content of advertising;
I will be mindful that the law is a learned profession and that among its desirable goals are devotion to public service, improvement of administration of justice, and the contribution of uncompensated time and civic influence on behalf of those persons who cannot afford adequate legal assistance;
I will endeavor to ensure that all persons, regardless of race, age, gender, disability, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, color, or creed receive fair and equal treatment under the law, and will always conduct myself in such a way as to promote equality and justice for all.
It is understood that nothing in these Principles shall be deemed to supersede, supplement or in any way amend the Rules of Professional Conduct, alter existing standards of conduct against which lawyer conduct might be judged or become a basis for the imposition of civil liability of any kind.
--Adopted by the Connecticut Bar Association House of Delegates on June 6, 1994
Page 2 of 44
Table of Contents Agenda .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
General Principles of Discovery – Christopher P. Kriesen ....................................................................................................... 7
Drafting Discovery – Anthony J. Interlandi ........................................................................................................................... 14
Responding and Objecting to Discovery – John P. D’Ambrosio ............................................................................................ 36
Page 3 of 44
Beyond Standard Discovery: Drafting, Objecting, and Responding (EYL190409) Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Agenda
6:00 p.m. – 6:20 p.m. General Principles of Discovery – Goals, limits, ethics, and evaluating the discovery needs of a case
Speaker: Christopher P. Kriesen, The Kalon Law Firm LLC, Hartford
6:20 p.m. – 6:40 p.m. Drafting Discovery – Types of discovery, when applicable, requests for admission, motions for permission to serve non-standard, and third-party discovery
Speaker: Anthony J. Interlandi, Monarch Law, Hartford
6:40 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Responding and Objecting to Discovery – Document production, working with the client, State vs. Federal, types of objections, and duties when responding
Speaker: John P. D’Ambrosio, Cowdery & Murphy LLC, Hartford
7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Panel Discussion and Q&A
Speakers: John P. D’Ambrosio, Cowdery & Murphy LLC, Hartford; Anthony J. Interlandi, Monarch Law, Hartford; Christopher P. Kriesen, The Kalon Law Firm LLC, Hartford
Moderator: Ronald J. Houde, The Kalon Law Firm LLC, Hartford
Page 4 of 44
Faculty Biographies John P. D’Ambrosio is a partner at Cowdery & Murphy, LLC in Hartford. His practice focuses on defending individuals and businesses in white collar criminal matters, and in complex enforcement matters involving the False Claims Act, RICO, securities laws, healthcare fraud, and antitrust laws. He is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and St. John’s University School of Law. Attorney Ronald J. Houde is a trial and appellate lawyer practicing in the areas of municipal liability, Connecticut tribal law, premises liability, insurance coverage, personal and commercial auto, and uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. He practices in state, federal, and Connecticut tribal courts. He is member of the founding team at Kalon Law Firm in Hartford, Connecticut. At Kalon, Attorney Houde serves as the firm’s Diversity and Inclusion Officer. Outside of Kalon, Attorney Houde is active in state, local, and affinity bar associations. He is also a pro bono attorney for the Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants. In 2018, the Connecticut Law Tribune recognized him as a "New Leader in the Law" and Super Lawyers recognized him as a "Rising Star". Prior to joining Kalon, Attorney Houde was an associate at an insurance defense firm in Hartford. He also served as a clerk to the Honorable Judges of the Hartford Superior Court. Tony Interlandi, Esq., is the owner of Monarch Law, a modern law firm helping people with legal issues related to their employment or the employment of others. Tony represents individuals and employers in a broad range of legal matters including both consulting work and litigation. He has litigated cases in Connecticut’s superior and federal courts. Tony also represents clients in administrative hearings before Connecticut and federal agencies. When he’s not helping clients, Tony enjoys time with family and friends. He listens to podcasts, meditates, follows the Ketogenic diet and plays with his children. Tony lives in Kensington, Connecticut with his wife Elsa, and their son Anthony Jr. and daughter Liviana. You can learn more about Tony and his law firm at MonarchLawCT.com. Attorney Christopher P. Kriesen is the founder and principal of the Kalon Law Firm, LLC. He formed the firm in 2017 to fulfill his vision of a better way to practice law, serve clients, and promote social good through entrepreneurship. He leads the firm and serves as the ethics officer. Attorney Kriesen has tried cases in State and Federal Court, has argued appeals before Connecticut’s Appellate and Supreme Courts, and has helped prepare amicus briefs on issues raising cases of first impression before the Supreme Court. He is a trained mediator (Harvard Law School, Advanced Mediation Workshop, Program on Negotiation and the Quinnipiac School of Law Center on Dispute Resolution). He serves as an Attorney Trial Referee, Fact Finder, and Arbitrator in the Hartford Superior Court. He has taught advocacy to students at the University of Connecticut School of Law. He is an active presenter at legal seminars for other lawyers and a mentor to law students and young lawyers.
Page 5 of 44
He established the Kalon Fellowship, the Kalon Human Rights Clinic, Salons, Workshops, the Cicero Advocacy Project, and the Kalon ADR Center (which, as of September 1, 2018, donates 10% of its revenue to fund a scholarship for a graduate of the Hartford Youth Scholars Steppingstone Academy to help with their continuing education) making Kalon unique among peer firms in promoting social good. He lives in West Hartford with his wife and his daughter attends Brandeis University.
making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The judicial authority shall make
the order unless it finds that such failure to admit was reasonable. (P.B. 1978-1997,
Sec. 241.)
How Discovery Should then Proceed
Hopefully, if everyone has followed the rules above, all that remains is discovery
directed to learn information that is relevant and material to the proof and challenging of
the causes of action, special defenses, and any cross claims, under the control of
others, including opposing parties, fact witnesses, and expert witnesses.
Of course, there may be reasonable debate over what is a frivolous denial and a
reasonable denial, so your discovery issues may be broader than you think they should
be, but at least you will have narrowed the issues.
Enter the world of interrogatories, requests for production, interviewing witnesses
not covered by any privilege, and depositions.
Attorney Kriesen is the founder and principal of The Kalon Law Firm, LLC. He has been practicing law as a trial lawyer for over twenty years. He has tried cases in state and federal
court and has argued appeals before the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts. He holds a Juris Doctor from The University of Connecticut School of Law.
The Kalon Law Firm, LLC │ 140 Huyshope Avenue, Suite 405 │ Hartford, Connecticut 06106 │ 860.249-0979
Page 13 of 44
Anthony J. Interlandi, Esq.MONARCH LAW
Hartford | East Berlin• MonarchLawCT.com
• 36 Russ Street, Hartford
• 1224 Mill Street, Building B, East Berlin
• Employment Law | Workers’ Compensation | Personal Injury
• Create your discovery plan before filing the lawsuit
• Type of Case / Number of Parties / Summary Judgment
• Have v. Need – Why do you need it?
• Joint Scheduling Order / Status Conference / FRCP 16 & 26
Page 15 of 44
DEVELOP A DISCOVERY PLAN• Time is your enemy
o Document Productiono Deadlines / Calendar Response Deadlines
• State Court - 60 days (Rogs & RFP) v. 30 days (RFA)o Protective Orderso Serve Requests ASAP
• Requests for Admission Are Your Friends
• Precision is Key
• Footnote Your Requests
Page 16 of 44
Scope of Discovery• Practice Book § 13-2
“[M]aterial to the subject matter involved in the pending action ” “[N]ot privileged” “[W]hether the discovery or disclosure relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the
claim or defense of any other party” “[W]ithin the knowledge, possession or power of the party or person to whom the discovery is addressed” “[Assist] in the prosecution or defense of the action” + “provided by the disclosing party or person with
substantially greater facility than it could otherwise be obtained by the party seeking disclosure”
• FRCP 26(b)(1) – “Proportionality”• “[A]ny nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
Page 17 of 44
Tools of the Trade
Page 18 of 44
Tools of the Trade• Interrogatories
o Practice Book §§ 13-6 (in general), 13-7 (answering), 13-8 (objecting)o FRCP 33
• Requests for Production of Documentso Practice Book §§ 13-9 (in general), 13-10 (responding/objecting)o FRCP 34
• Requests for Admissiono Practice Book §§ 13-22 (how/when made), 13-23 (answering/objecting), 13-24
(effect)o FRCP 36
Page 19 of 44
Rogs
Page 20 of 44
RFP
Page 21 of 44
RFA• Common Uses -
o To narrow inferential gapso To admit genuineness of any document that might conceivably be used in the case as
evidence or impeachmento To admit collateral facts about the documents that are evidentiary, foundational, or
doctrinal significance
• Samples –o When defendant’s Director of HR wrote the 5/14/05 letter (Exhibit A hereto), she knew that
plaintiff had filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against defendant.o Admit that documents [Bates Range] are true copies of the genuine original documents.o Ms. Smith composed the letter dated 5/14/05 (Exhibit A hereto) in the scope of her employment as
defendant’s HR Director.
Page 22 of 44
Case Law / Other Considerations• Vidal, et al v. Metro-North Commuter RR Co., 2013 WL 1310504 (D. Conn. 2013) (“The
frustration expressed by plaintiff with respect to defendant’s non-specific objections is shared by this Court and, quite frankly, only serves to increase litigation expenses on motion practice, potentially extend deadlines for completion of discovery unnecessarily and delay resolution of cases.”)
• Booth Oil Site Admin Group v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 194 F.R.D. 76 (W.D.N.Y 2000) (“Documents do not speak, rather, they represent factual information from which legal consequences may follow.”)
• Follow up depositions with written discovery• Request entry upon land or other property for the purpose of inspection, measuring, etc. – See Practice
Book § 13-9• Personal injury cases – move for permission to serve additional discovery as may be necessary – See
Practice Book § § 13-6(c) & 13-9(b) • Privilege logs – See Practice Book § 13-3
Page 23 of 44
SAMPLE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1)(B)
FOR RECORDS OF A REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___ : Admit that documents [Bates Range] are true and authentic copies of the genuine original documents. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] were made at or near the time of the regularly conducted activity to which the documents pertain. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] were made by a person with knowledge of the activity to which the documents pertain or were made from information transmitted by a person with knowledge of the activity to which the documents pertain. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] were prepared and kept by _______________________ in the course of regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] were made in the regular practice of the activity to which the documents pertain. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that all foundational requirements for the admission of documents [Bates Range] have been satisfied. ANSWER:
ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR MEDICAL RECORDS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that the statements contained in documents [Bates Range] are statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and that such statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms or sensations, or the inception or general cause of such symptoms. ANSWER:
Page 24 of 44
2
FOR OTHER RECORDS
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] are copies of official records. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] are certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] are self-authenticated within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 902. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] are self-authenticated within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 901. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] are records or reports of, or contain statements of, a public office or agency. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] set forth matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] set forth the activities of a public office or agency. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. ___: Admit that documents [Bates Range] set forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. ANSWER:
Page 25 of 44
Vidal v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2013)
2013 WL 1310504Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,D. Connecticut.
Robert VIDAL, Holger Ocanav.
METRO–NORTH COMMUTERRAILROAD COMPANY.
Civil No. 3:12CV248 (MPS).|
March 28, 2013.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Anthony J. Interlandi, Law Office of Anthony J.Interlandi, LLC, East Berlin, CT, Jeffrey J. Tinley, Tinley,Nastri, Renehan & Dost, Waterbury, CT, for RobertVidal, Holger Ocana.
Karen Kantor West, Marc L. Zaken, Ogletree, Deakins,Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Stamford, CT, for Metro–North Commuter Railroad Company.
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS'MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. # 47]
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS, United States MagistrateJudge.
*1 This action is brought by plaintiffs Robert Vidaland Holger Ocana, alleging discrimination in employmenton the basis of their Hispanic ethnicity, when they weredenied acceptance into the Maintenance of EquipmentPromotion–To–Foreman Training Program (the “FITProgram”), by their employer Metro–North CommuterRailroad Company, an alleged violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.Pending is plaintiffs' Motion to Compel responses to theirFirst Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof Documents [Doc. # 47].
A telephone conference was held on January 23, 2013,at the request of plaintiffs, seeking an interim rulingon discovery objections to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8 and9 in advance of the settlement conference. The Courtoverruled defendant's objections to interrogatories 7 and
8, as follows. Defendant was ordered to state the numberof people accepted into the FIT Program in 2007 andthe number of Foreman positions filled in 2007. Theruling was without prejudice to plaintiffs' requestingfurther information if defendant asserts a more extensivelack of mitigation affirmative defense. Objections tointerrogatory 9 were overruled as follows. Defendant wasordered to state the number of people who completed theFIT Program for the years 2003–06 and the number ofForeman positions filled in 2003–06.
A settlement conference was held on January 31, 2013. Atthe conclusion of the conference the parties met with theCourt to resolve the remaining discovery issues raised inthe motion to compel. This ruling and order memorializesthe order of the Court and the agreement of the parties.
1. General Objections Incorporated in Each ResponseDefendant's interrogatory responses to Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9and 13 incorporate by reference all of the substantivegeneral objections (eight in total), stating, “In additionto the General Objections, Defendant objects to thisInterrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad,unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to leadto the discovery of admissible evidence.” [Doc. # 47–2, Defendant's Supplemental Objections and Responsesdated December 3, 2012]. Defendant will specify which ofthe “General Objections” it relies on for Interrogatories2, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14. Defendant will provide supplementalresponses within seven (7) days.
Before defendant files its supplemental responses theCourt is compelled to comment generally on the useof “General Objections” and other boilerplate discoveryobjections. Defendant repeats the same verbiage intoeach interrogatory response, using the familiar boilerplatephrase that each and every request is “overly broad,unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and furtherthat it relies on an unspecified “General Objection.”The frustration expressed by plaintiff with respect todefendant's non-specific objections is shared by this Courtand, quite frankly, only serves to increase litigationexpenses on motion practice, potentially extend deadlinesfor completion of discovery unnecessarily and delayresolution of cases. “[T]he scope of discovery underFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) is very broad, ‘encompass[ing] anymatter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead toother matter that could bear on, any issue that is or
may be in the case.’ “ Maresco v. Evans Chemetics Div.of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d Cir.1992)(quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,351, (1978)). “A party seeking discovery may move foran order compelling an answer, designation, production,or inspection.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). “Motions tocompel made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 are “entrustedto the sound discretion of the district court.” United Statesv. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 720 (2d Cir.2000). “The groundsfor objecting to any interrogatory must be stated withspecificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objectionis waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses thefailure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4). “[B]oilerplate objectionsthat include unsubstantiated claims of undue burden,overbreadth and lack of relevancy,” while producing“no documents and answer[ing] no interrogatories ...are a paradigm of discovery abuse.” Jacoby v. HartfordLife & Accident Ins. Co., 254 F.R.D> 477, 478(S.D.N.Y.2009). A party resisting discovery has theburden of showing “specifically how, despite the broadand liberal construction afforded the federal discoveryrules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how eachquestion is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, ...submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing thenature of the burden.” Compagnie Francaise d'AssurancePour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105F.R.D. 16, 42 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (citation omitted).
*2 Defendant is cautioned that continued failure tofollow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respectto making specific objections to discovery demands mayresult in the imposition of sanctions and/or payment ofcosts.
2. Interrogatory Nos. 13 & 14
Interrogatory 13: State the factual basis for theassertion that the CHRO “unreasonably delayed inacknowledging its lack of jurisdiction.”
Interrogatory 14: State the factual basis of theassertion that “[t]he EEOC and Department ofJustice unreasonably delayed processing plaintiffs'administrative charges after the CHRO finallyacknowledged that it lacked jurisdiction.”
Defendant provided identical responses to theseinterrogatories as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections,Defendant states that Plaintiffs improperly filed chargeswith the CHRO, an agency which statutorily lackedjurisdiction over their claims, pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. 16–344(a). Since the CHRO never hadjurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, Plaintiffs' filingswith the CHRO were void ab initio. Plaintiffs' failureto timely and diligently pursue their appropriateadministrative remedies solely before the EEOCresulted in extraordinary delays in the administrativeprocessing of their charges of discrimination toDefendant's detriment.
Defendant's ability to defend itself in this actionhas been damaged by the delay caused by Plaintiffs'defective filing with the CHRO which led directly tofurther delays before the EEOC and Department ofJustice. Plaintiffs failed to request right-to-sue letter ina timely manner, so it has now been over six years sincethe events occurred about which plaintiffs claim.
Plaintiffs seek further clarification regarding the allegedconduct by plaintiffs, the CHRO, the EEOC and theDOJ that supports defendant's laches defense. Defendantcontends that it has answered the interrogatories andthat plaintiffs are aware of the timeline associated withthe administrative process. If there is anything further,defendant may supplement the responses and providefurther information regarding the “factual basis” for itsdefense within seven days.
3. Request for Production 10On January 8, 2013, defendant stated in response toplaintiffs' motion to compel that it had produced allresponsive documents and referenced the Bates numbereddocuments produced. [Doc. # 57]. On reply, plaintiffsstated that defendant's response was “improper andconfusing.” [Doc. # 60 at 3]. At the conference, plaintiffsdid not explain how the production was insufficientunder the Federal Rules. If there are no other responsivedocuments, after a good faith effort to locate them,defendant will so state under oath and withdraw itsobjection.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel request forproduction 10 is moot on this record.
CONCLUSIONAccordingly, plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Doc. # 47]is GRANTED as set forth in this ruling and the Court'sinterim ruling dated January 23, 2013. [Doc. # 62].Defendant's supplemental discovery responses are duein seven (7) days. Defendant's response to Request forProduction 10 is due in fourteen (14) days.
*3 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel request for production10 is moot on this record.
The parties are reminded of their on-going duty tosupplement or correct disclosures or responses under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). 1
The parties are encouraged to contact chambers toschedule a conference, if any issues arise that may impactthe deadlines set in this ruling/order.
This is not a recommended ruling. This is a discoveryruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the“clearly erroneous” statutory standard of review. 28U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72(a);and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United States MagistrateJudges. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversedor modified by the district judge upon motion timelymade.
SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1310504
Footnotes1 Fed. R. Civ. P 25(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.
(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or who has responded to an interrogatory,request for production, or request for admission—must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete orincorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties duringthe discovery process or in writing;