Adams et al v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C.
ORDER denying 106 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 101 Motion to Compel; Denial of the Motion to Compel is made without prejudice to defendants right to bring a new motion seeking to compel more complete responses, should such relief prove necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 11/24/09. (srr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION EARATON ADAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, Plaintiffs, v. AUSTAL, U.S.A., L.L.C., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0155-KD-N
ORDER Defendant Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. ("Austal") has filed a Motion (doc. 106) requesting that the court stay consideration of its previously-filed Motion to Compel (doc. 101) responses to two subpoenas served on third-party Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc. ("Bender"). The Motion to Compel complained that Bender had made objections to the subpoenas but had produced no documents in response. In support of the instant motion, Austal asserts that Bender has provided documents it claims are responsive to the subpoenas, but requests that the court keep the original Motion to Compel pending until Bender has reviewed the documents, so that Bender may be made to respond in the event that the production is found to be inadequate. The original motion, however, is not drafted to address deficient production but the complete lack of response; a new motion will be required to challenge any inadequacy in the production made. Nor could the court cogently require Bender to respond to the original motion, following partial production of documents. Further, the Motion to Compel recites efforts Austal made to confer with Bender to 1
obtain compliance and thus avoid the need for court involvement, as is required prior to filing a Motion to Compel; additional conferencing efforts would be necessary to correct allegedly inadequate responses before the court would consider a renewed motion to compel further responses. It thus appears that a stay of the motion to compel currently pending before the court is not a reasonable remedy. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Austal's Motion to Stay is DENIED, and that the Motion to Compel is DENIED as Moot. Denial of the Motion to Compel is made without prejudice to defendant's right to bring a new motion seeking to compel more complete responses, should such relief prove necessary. DONE and ORDERED this the 24th day of November, 2009.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?