Cook, et al v. Rockwell Intl Corp

Filing 2521

ORDER Granting Class Counsel's 2519 Motion for Protective Order and Denying in Part FRICO's 2517 Motion for Review of its Claim, Discovery, and a Hearing. ORDERED by Judge John L. Kane on 7/30/2018. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 90-cv-00181-JLK
MERILYN COOK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING CLASS COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF NO. 2519) AND DENYING IN PART FRICO’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ITS
CLAIM, DISCOVERY, AND A HEARING (ECF NO. 2517)
______________________________________________________________________________
Kane, J.
This matter is before me on two motions. The first is The Farmers Reservoir and
Irrigation Company’s Motion for: 1. Review of the Settlement and Claims Administrator’s
Denial of its Claims; 2. Request for Limited Discovery; and 3. Request for Hearing (ECF No.
2517). And the second is Class Counsel’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 2519) quashing
The First Set of Discovery Requests to the Settlement and Claims Administrator submitted by
The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO). Upon review of Class Counsel’s
Motion, FRICO’s Motion, Class Counsel’s Memorandum in Opposition to FRICO’s Motion
(ECF No. 2518), and all accompanying exhibits, I find FRICO is not entitled to discovery from
the Settlement and Claims Administrator. Specifically, FRICO is not entitled to discovery in the
form of interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admissions as the Administrator
is not a “party” to this action. I similarly agree with Class Counsel that, even if discovery from
the Administrator was permitted, the discovery requested is not relevant for determining the
disputed matters—whether FRICO’s claim is valid and, if so, whether its property should be

1

classified as commercial or vacant. Resources should not be diverted from administering and
distributing the settlement for the sake of pursuing unnecessary discovery.
Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes me to, “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . .”
Accordingly, Class Counsel’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 2519) is GRANTED such
that FRICO’s First Set of Discovery Requests to the Settlement and Claims Administrator are
QUASHED. FRICO’s Motion (ECF No. 2517), in turn, is DENIED IN PART in that FRICO is
not permitted to undertake discovery, including a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, a deposition of the
Claim Administrator’s property expert, interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for
production. The remaining relief sought in FRICO’s Motion will be addressed after I receive
FRICO’s Reply on August 16, 2018.

DATED this 30th day of July, 2018.

______________________________
JOHN L. KANE
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2