Gumby v. UPS Ground Freight Inc et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part and denying in part pltf's 46 Motion for Reconsideration of his motion to compel and for sanctions; defts are to provide the Court with the privilege log and any accompanying brief on or before 3/27/12. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 3/23/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM GUMBY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UPS GROUND FREIGHT INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

No. 4:11CV000340 SWW

Order
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his motion to compel and for
sanctions. For the reasons stated at the conclusion of the hearing held on March 20, 2012, and
summarized here, the motion for reconsideration is granted. The motion to compel is granted in part
and denied in part; the request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff complains that after he filed an amended complaint, defendants had a duty under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(A) to supplement their responses to discovery and they failed to do so. Plaintiff
asks the Court to compel production of information propounded in a number of requests for production
of documents.
As to plaintiff’s requests for production of incident or accident reports (No. 5), copy of
interview or statement from separate defendant Howard following the accident (No. 25), and
notification of separate defendant UPS Ground Freight (“UPS”) of the accident (No. 26), which
defendants claim are privileged, the Court orders UPS to provide the Court with the privilege log and
any brief or argument in support on or before March 27, 2012. The Court further orders UPS to provide
plaintiff with whatever documents it has that are responsive to Request for Production No. 7 (UPS
safety manual or equivalent) and Request for Production No. 8 (data from any speed monitoring

device). The Court orders defendant to provide any written documents and/or video involving safety
training Howard may have been provided prior to the accident , including tests he may have taken
before the accident (No. 22), any information UPS provided Howard prior to the accident on
preventable accidents (No. 32), and all documents regarding accidents of Howard while employed by
UPS (No. 38). If UPS has a document that is responsive to Request No. 35 (accident registration
pursuant to federal regulations), it must provide it to plaintiff. The Court orders defendants to produce
Howard’s medical records dated since 2001 (No. 13).
The Court finds defendants are not compelled to provide plaintiff with documents classifying
the collision (No.33) or any post-accident review and/or training of Howard (No. 34) as the Court finds
these documents are inadmissible evidence of subsequent remedial measures.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 46] is granted
in part and denied in part. Defendants are to provide the Court with the privilege log and any
accompanying brief on or before March 27, 2012.
DATED this 23rd day of March, 2012.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2