Wagner v. Discover Financial Services, LLC

Filing 61

ORDER granting 58 Motion to Clarify. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/12/13.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02786-MSK-BNB
WALTER F. WAGNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISCOVER BANK,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Defendant’s Request for Clarification [Doc. # 58, filed 7/5/2013]
(the “Motion”). The defendant requests clarification about whether my Order [Doc. # 56]
erroneously required it to disclose the addresses of “the 76 current and former employees
disclosed by Discover Bank on May 1, 2013.” Order [Doc. # 56] at p.1.
Although I recall a discussion about whether plaintiff’s counsel may ethically contact
current and former employees, and I may have expressed my understanding of the rules in that
regard, the issue of direct contact was not before me. The issue before me was whether Discover
Bank is required to disclose under Rule 26(a)(1) the last known addresses of the witnesses it
identified in its voluntary disclosures. On that point, the rule is clear:
[A] party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to
the other parties . . . the name and, if known, the address and
telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable
information . . . that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses. . . .
Rule 26(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

Regardless of whether plaintiff’s counsel may contact the potential witnesses, the rule
requires Discover Bank to disclose their last known addresses and telephone numbers.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion [Doc. # 58] is GRANTED, and the Order [Doc. # 56] is
clarified as indicated.
Dated July 12, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2