Chandler et al v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 34 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as outlined by this Order. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 11/21/2012. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION TED CHANDLER, et al. VS. PLAINTIFFS 3:12-CV-00104-BRW JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel against Defendant APAC-Tennessee (Doc. No. 34). Defendant APAC-Tennessee has responded,1 and Plaintiffs have replied.2 For reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. On November 14, 2012, I conducted a telephone conference with counsel for the parties to discuss their discovery disputes.3 Based on counsels’ representations, the following was ordered: 1. With respect to Interrogatory No. 7, APAC-Tennessee must identify highway construction contracts it entered with the State of Arkansas during the past 5 years. 2. As to Interrogatory No. 9, APAC-Tennessee must list all reprimands, sanctions or penalties that the State of Arkansas issued to APAC-Tennessee as a result of its performance of Job #110492. 1 Doc. No. 36. 2 Doc. No. 37. 3 Doc. No. 42. 1 3. As to Interrogatory No. 19, APAC-Tennessee must determine if any contractor was hired as a traffic safety consultant -- if so, APAC-Tennessee must have identified the traffic safety consultant by noon on November 15, 2012. 4. As to Request for Production No. 3, APAC-Tennessee must produce a copy of any correspondence with Jacobs Engineering regarding the traffic control devices Plaintiffs confronted prior to the accident and any correspondence that would relate to the liability of either Defendant in this case. 5. As to Request for Production No. 6, once Plaintiffs have had an opportunity to review the reports regarding accidents that occurred during the course of Job #110492, they must then specifically identify what additional information is sought regarding the accidents that occurred during the course of Job #110492. 6. With respect to Request or Production No. 9, APAC-Tennessee must produce all “change orders” for the project -- however, if APAC-Tennessee believes the burden of complying with this Order is grounds for me to reconsider my ruling, it may, before producing the change orders, advise me by letter of its position. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2012. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?