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)

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: [e-mail]

TOLL FREE 877-931-3101
870-931-3101
FAX [phone]

Aprill9, 2013

Via Email: [e-mail]
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