Maryland Casualty Co et al v. Broan-Nutone LLC et al

Filing 93

ORDER granting 87 Motion to Compel and denying request for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 8/23/2010.THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. (Watson, M.)

Download PDF
Maryland Casualty Co et al v. Jakel Motors, Inc. Doc. 93 MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. ET AL. V. BROAN-NUTONE LLC, 09 CV 62 (JBA) ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT ON DKT. #87 8/23/10 The issues here have been more than adequately briefed. (See Dkts. ##87-88). The only issue left is the location of the non-destructive testing whether it should be held at the lab of defendants' expert, Dr. Charles Manning, in Raleigh, NC, as argued by defendants, or in the New York metropolitan area, as argued by plaintiffs. It goes without saying that this discovery motion is one which counsel, acting as mature adults, should have been able to resolve between themselves, without imposing upon the Court. Defendants are entitled to have their expert, Dr. Manning, perform the non-destructive testing at the specialized lab of his choice, which apparently has more sophisticated equipment than similar labs in New England or in the New York metropolitan area. (Dkt. #87, Brief at 4, 5 & n.1, 7-12, & Exh. F & Subexh. 1). Contrary to plaintiff's arguments (Dkt. #88, at 1-3 & Exhs.), the distance between Connecticut/New York and Raleigh is not so substantial, nor so inconvenient, as to compel Dr. Manning to utilize a laboratory other than his own. See, e.g., Homes v. J.M. Prods., Inc., No. 03-2190(BV), 2005 WL 927172 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 7, 2005). Therefore, defendants' Emergency Motion to Compel (Dkt. #87) is granted to the extent that the non-destructive testing will take place at Dr. Manning's laboratory in Raleigh, NC, but their request for sanctions is denied. If either counsel believe that a settlement conference before this Magistrate Judge would be productive, he should contact Chambers accordingly.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?