Filed: Aug. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to various discovery requests (Dkt. No. 20), which was narrowed prior to the filing of the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement ("Joint Statement") (Dkt. No. 25). 1 All discovery in this case must be "completed" by August 14, 2012. 2 ( See Stip. & Order, May 25, 2012, Dkt. No. 14.) The court heard this matter on its August 9, 2012 civil law and motion calendar. Attor
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to various discovery requests (Dkt. No. 20), which was narrowed prior to the filing of the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement ("Joint Statement") (Dkt. No. 25). 1 All discovery in this case must be "completed" by August 14, 2012. 2 ( See Stip. & Order, May 25, 2012, Dkt. No. 14.) The court heard this matter on its August 9, 2012 civil law and motion calendar. Attorn..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to various discovery requests (Dkt. No. 20), which was narrowed prior to the filing of the Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement ("Joint Statement") (Dkt. No. 25).1 All discovery in this case must be "completed" by August 14, 2012.2 (See Stip. & Order, May 25, 2012, Dkt. No. 14.)
The court heard this matter on its August 9, 2012 civil law and motion calendar. Attorney Laura Jane Coles appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.3 Attorney Sean White appeared on behalf of defendant. The court has fully considered the parties' Joint Statement and oral arguments. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the court grants plaintiffs' motion to compel in part and denies it in part, as stated below.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Dkt. No. 20) is granted in part and denied in part.
2. To the extent not already produced, defendant shall produce the following insurance policies to plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company ("Maryland") on or before August 14, 2012:
• Policy No. 122164A, effective 10/01/96 - 10/01/97;
• Policy No. 166538A, effective 11/13/02 - 11/13/03;
• Policy No. 166538B, effective 11/13/02 - 6/23/04;
• Policy No. 103238B, effective 10/01/93 - 10/01/94;
• Policy No. 105528C, effective 10/01/94 - 10/01/95; and
• All other general liability insurance policies issued by defendant to FRG Construction Co. that were effective between the years 1994 and 2006.
3. On or before August 14, 2012, defendant shall produce the following documents, identified in its privilege log with the following Bates pages (see Joint Statement, Ex. F), to plaintiff Maryland:
• FPIC JMC 00020;
• FPIC JMC 00521-00523;
• FPIC JMC 00524-00531;
• FPIC JMC 00707;
• FPIC JMC 00739; and
• FPIC JMC 00740-42.
4. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied in all other respects.4
5. Plaintiffs' and defendant's respective requests for an award of reasonable expenses are denied. Given the rough equivalence of the expenses sought, the relatively unclear presentation of the issues in the Joint Statement, and the attacks made primarily by plaintiffs' counsel in the Joint Statement, "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).
6. The court's Order to Show Cause filed on July 26, 2012 (Dkt. No. 21), is discharged in light of the minimal discovery materials ordered produced by this order.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
