Ridgeway v. Calfrac Well Services Corp

Filing 16

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Compel and for Continuance. This matter remains set for Jury Trial on July 8, 2013. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on May 8, 2013. (jas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CLIFTON WAYNE RIDGEWAY
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:12-CV-02159

CALFRAC WELL SERVICES CORPORATION

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Clifton Wayne Ridgeway’s Motion to Compel and for
Continuance (Doc. 10), which was filed on April 12, 2013. In the Motion, Plaintiff states that
Defendant Calfrac Well Services Corporation failed to answer two of Plaintiff’s interrogatories
concerning the chemical makeup of a substance known as DWP-601. Plaintiff avers that the
interrogatories were propounded on November 15, 2012, and on December 14, 2012, Defendant
objected to and refused to answer these interrogatories. Plaintiff then wrote a letter to Defendant’s
counsel on April 2, 2013 (Doc. 10-2), requesting that Defendant provide the specific contents of
DWP-601 or face a motion to compel. After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and attached
exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 7.2(g) and did not include
in his Motion a statement that the parties conferred in good faith on this discovery issue and were
unable to resolve their disagreement without the intervention of the Court.
Further, there is cause to conclude that Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel prematurely
because on April 17, 2013, Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff with the chemical composition of
DWP-601 pursuant to the entry of a protective order. See Doc. 12-4, E-mail from counsel for
Defendant to counsel for Plaintiff. On April 19, 2013, the parties filed a motion for agreed
protective order which the Court entered on April 22, 2013.
It appears, therefore, that the basis for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is now moot as

Defendant has agreed to provide responses to the contested interrogatories. As for Plaintiff’s request
for a continuance, the Court finds that no good cause has been presented to justify any extension of
the deadlines in the Final Scheduling Order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for
Continuance (Doc. 10) is DENIED. This matter remains scheduled for jury trial to begin on July 8,
2013, in Fort Smith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2013.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-