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)

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