Bedwell v. Cossey, 2:18-cv-108-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20181113h51
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . The Court notes the parties' joint report of a discovery dispute, NQ 8. In Count I, the trustee alleges a breach of fiduciary duty-conflicting loyalties, nondisclosure of Oceanus's financial problems, and strategic behavior across several cases-that goes beyond a stumble in filing the appellate record. The trustee is entitled to some reasonable and targeted discovery on these allegations. But the trustee's request for production, NQ 8 at 7, as
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . The Court notes the parties' joint report of a discovery dispute, NQ 8. In Count I, the trustee alleges a breach of fiduciary duty-conflicting loyalties, nondisclosure of Oceanus's financial problems, and strategic behavior across several cases-that goes beyond a stumble in filing the appellate record. The trustee is entitled to some reasonable and targeted discovery on these allegations. But the trustee's request for production, NQ 8 at 7, ask..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
The Court notes the parties' joint report of a discovery dispute, NQ 8. In Count I, the trustee alleges a breach of fiduciary duty-conflicting loyalties, nondisclosure of Oceanus's financial problems, and strategic behavior across several cases-that goes beyond a stumble in filing the appellate record. The trustee is entitled to some reasonable and targeted discovery on these allegations. But the trustee's request for production, NQ 8 at 7, asks for a decade's worth of material: a request that is too wide and too deep. The objection to that overreach is sustained. The Court directs the trustee to propound some narrowly tailored discovery, limited in time and substance, about the joint representation, what Cossey and the Hudson firm knew about Oceanus's financial problems and when, and other then-pending cases involving the firm. Defendants can respond, object and prepare a privilege/work-product log, or both. The Court directs that counsel then have a sit-down conference if disagreements remain. Please confer in good faith about what can be addressed by protective order and what (if anything) the Court must address. If there's an impasse, file another joint report with supporting materials by 5 January 2019. Joint report, No 8, addressed.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
