Plummer et al v. Terex Corporation et al

Filing 44

ORDER attaching the report on discovery. The parties may contact the Court if new issues arise. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/23/13. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN PLUMMER and DEZIRIE PLUMMER v. PLAINTIFFS No. 2:12-cv-192-DPM TEREX CORPORATION; TEREX USA, LLC; TEREX UTILITIES, INC.; TEREX SOUTH DAKOTA, INC., ffk/a TEREX-TELECT; FORMERLY FORESTRY, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS FORMERLY FORESTRY, INC. CROSS-CLAIMANT v. TEREX CORPORATION; TEREX USA, LLC; TEREX UTILITIES, INC.; TEREX SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. ffk/a TEREX-TELECT CROSS-DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court appreciates the attached good report on discovery. The parties remain welcome to contact the Court if new issues arise. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall frO United States District Judge 23 April 2013 WILCOX & LACY PLC 600 S. Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 WRITER'S EMAIL: TOLL FREE 877-931-3101 870-931-3101 FAX 870-931-3102 Aprill9, 2013 Via Email: Honorable D. Price Marshall, Jr. Richard Sheppard Arnold US Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Rm. B155 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: John and Dezirie Plummer v. Terex Corporation, Terex USA, LLC, Terex Utilities, Inc., Terex South Dakota, Inc f/k/a Terex-Telect, Formerly Forestry, Inc., Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/(1 Gomaco Corporation, and John Does 1-10 Dear Judge Marshall, Your Honor's Order dated April2, 2013 requests a Joint Report on written discovery in the above referenced case. In Your Honor's Order, the Court directed the parties to confer by telephone to resolve any remaining issues about written discovery. The Court is correct that the parties have conferred in good faith on these issues between the filing of their initial 26(f) reports and the date of the Court's Order. It appears at this time that the parties have resolved all such issues. All written discovery exchanged by the parties has been substantively answered at this time. Although the parties may disagree regarding certain objections asserted to this discovery at some point in the future, it does not appear that there is any dispute at this time regarding the number of interrogatories. In fact, the Plaintiffs' depositions were taken in this case yesterday. At that time, the parties agreed that, in the event that any additional discovery requests were needed in the future, they would attempt to confer in good faith before involving the Court, and would only involve the Court by means of a telephone call, as directed in the Court's Scheduling Order. At this time, however, no such issues exist. I hope this letter sufficiently addresses all concerns regarding the status of any ongoing discovery issues. If not, please feel free to let us know. I have already circulated this letter to counsel for each of the Defendants and I am authorized to say that they have approved the content of this letter. Yours Truly, p~'l~.)""<s Brandon W. Lacy BWL/ss cc: Joseph W. Price, II Michael N. Shannon M. Samuel Jones III

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?