Federal Trade Commission v. Ross-Clayton Funeral Home, Inc. et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) that the 48 MOTION to Compel depositions be and is hereby DENIED to the extent that the defendants seek to depose Chairwoman Edith Ramierz and RegionalDirector Cindy Liebes; in all other respe cts, the motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED as moot; (2) that, with respect to Interrogatories #11, 12, 23, and Request for Production #36, the 49 MOTION to Compel be and is hereby DENIED; with respect to the remaining interrogatories and requests for production, the motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED as moot; (3) that with respect to Interrogatory #8 and Request for Production #21, the motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED; however, the plf is directed to serve on the de fendants no later than December 23, 2015, a privilege log that comports with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(5)(A). The defendants shall have until January 13, 2016, to assess and challenge any claims of privilege. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/9/15. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSS-CLAYTON FUNERAL
HOME, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:13cv851-MHT
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Now pending before the court are two motions to compel, or in the alternative,
motions to dismiss (docs. # 48 & 49) filed by the defendants on September 29, 2015. In their
first motion to compel (doc. # 48), the defendants seek to compel the plaintiff to put up for
deposition a FED.R.CIV.P. (30)(b)(6) representative as well as Jessica Rich, Edith Ramirez,
Cindy Liebes, Tonia Jackson and Michael Liggins. In their second motion to compel (doc.
# 49), the defendants seek to compel the plaintiff to respond to interrogatories or requests for
production related in large part to the FTC’s Federal Rules Offenders Program (“FROP”).
The court heard oral argument on the motions on December 8, 2015. Prior to oral
argument, the parties informed the court that they had resolved many of the issues, but there
remained disputes regarding the depositions of FED.R.CIV.P. 30(b)(6) representatives as well
as the depositions of Edith Ramierez, Cindy Liebes, Tonia Jackson and Michael Liggins. See
Doc. # 68. During oral arguments, the plaintiff agreed to make available for depositions
Tonia C. Jackson, Michael Liggins and, after the defendants narrowed areas of inquiry,

appropriate representatives pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 30(b)(6). Consequently, the motion to
compel these depositions will be denied as moot. With respect to compelling the depositions
of Chairwoman Edith Ramierz and Regional Director Cindy Liebes, the motion to compel
their depositions will be denied.
The parties also resolved many of the disputes regarding the interrogatories and
requests for production but there remained in dispute Interrogatories # 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20,
22 and 23 as well as Requests for Production # 3, 6, 13 and 21. Id.
In Interrogatories # 11, 12, and 23, and Request for Production # 3 and 6, the
defendants seek discovery related to FTC’s Federal Rule Offenders Program. It is undisputed
that the defendants declined to participate in the FROP program. Consequently, at this
juncture, information about this program is not relevant. The motion to compel with respect
to these interrogatories and requests for production will be denied.
In Interrogatories # 15 and 16, and Request for Production # 13, the defendants seek
information related to “minor compliance deficiencies.” At oral argument, the parties
informed the court that the defendants modified their requests, and the plaintiff agreed to
respond to the requests as modified. Thus, the motion to compel with respect to these
requests is now moot given the parties’ agreement.
In Interrogatory # 22, the defendants sought yearly reports submitted by the F.T.C. to
Congress. At oral argument, the defendants orally modified their request and the plaintiff
agreed to respond to the modified request. Consequently, the motion to compel with respect

2

to Interrogatory # 22 will be denied as moot, given the parties’ agreement.
Finally, with respect to Interrogatory # 8 and Request for Production # 21, the plaintiff
asserted that it had produced all documents except any documents protected by the attorneyclient privilege or the work product doctrine. Thus, the motion to compel with respect to
these requests will be denied. However, the plaintiff conceded that it had not provided to the
defendants a privilege log as required by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(5)(A). Accordingly, the
plaintiff shall be directed to provide to the defendants a privilege log consistent with
FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(5)(A).
Accordingly, upon consideration of the motions, and as stated in open court, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.

That the motion to compel depositions (doc. # 48) be and is hereby DENIED

to the extent that the defendants seek to depose Chairwoman Edith Ramierz and Regional
Director Cindy Liebes. In all other respects, the motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED
as moot.
2.

That, with respect to Interrogatories # 11, 12, 23, and Request for Production

# 36, the motion to compel (doc. # 49) be and is hereby DENIED. With respect to the
remaining interrogatories and requests for production, the motion to compel be and is hereby
DENIED as moot.
3.

That with respect to Interrogatory # 8 and Request for Production # 21, the

motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED. However, the plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve

3

on the defendants no later than December 23, 2015, a privilege log that comports with
FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(5)(A). The defendants shall have until January 13, 2016, to assess and
challenge any claims of privilege.
Done this 9th day of December, 2015.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4