Cartrette v. T & J Transport, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying 65 Motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 6/15/2011. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Rex A. Cartrette,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:10-cv-277-J-25MCR

T & J Transport, Inc., a foreign corporation;
Jones Boys Trucking, Inc., a foreign
corporation; and William Tommy Jones,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant T&J Transport Inc.’s Motion to
Compel (Doc. 65) filed May 25, 2011.
I.

BACKGROUND
This cause arises out of a motor vehicle accident occurring on February 8, 2007.

(Doc. 1). In April 2011, Defendant served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Requests to
Produce. (Doc. 65-A). In May 2011, Plaintiff served answers to Defendant’s discovery
requests, objecting to a number of said requests. (Doc. 65-B). Specifically, Plaintiff
objected to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and Requests to Produce Nos. 1,
subparts (a)-(e), 2, 3, and 5. (Id.). On May 25, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion seeking
an Order compelling responses to said discovery requests.1 (Doc. 65). On June 7,
1

The Court notes that the only legal authority cited by Defendant in support of its Motion is
a Florida case applying Florida law. See Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1 (Fla.
2nd DCA 2001). Therefore, Plaintiff’s memorandum of law provided this Court with no binding legal

(continued...)
-1-

2011, Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion. (Doc. 69).
Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for judicial determination.
II.

ANALYSIS
A.

Standard for Motion to Compel

Motions to compel discovery brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37 are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The overall purpose of discovery
under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that
the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and
accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result.
See United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S. Ct. 983, 2 L. Ed.
2d 1077 (1958). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision
unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial
intervention. S.L. Sakansky & Assocs. v. Allied Am. Adjusting Co. of Fla., LLC, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52633, 2007 WL 2010860, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2007). Furthermore,
according to the Middle District guidelines, "[d]iscovery in this district should be
practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility." Middle District Discovery (2001) at 1.
Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows any party to
serve on any other party interrogatories and requests for production of documents
which concern matters within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Under

1

(...continued)

authority as to the appropriateness of its request. In any event, the Court will consider the
discovery requests at issue.
-2-

Rule 26(b), "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is
relevant to the claims or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Hickman
v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947); Farnsworth v.
Procter and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985); Canal Authority v.
Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609, 611 (M.D. Fla. 1979). Information can be relevant and
therefore discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the information is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dunbar v. United
States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974).
B.

Defendant’s Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and
Requests to Produce Nos. 1, subparts (a)-(e), 2, 3, and 5.

Defendant’s Interrogatory Nos. 2-5 request information identifying files in which
Plaintiff’s experts were retained as experts or treating physicians in previous cases.
(Doc. 65-A). Defendant’s Interrogatory Nos. 6-9 request information identifying files
which “other associates” of Plaintiff’s treating physicians and expert witnesses examined
patients for Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id.). Defendant’s Requests to Produce seek
documentation concerning the cases where Plaintiff's counsel and/or his law firm had
retained the listed experts in the last three years, and the amount of money Plaintiff's
counsel and/or his law firm had paid to the listed experts during the past the three
years. (Id.).
Plaintiff contends that although Defendant requests are directed toward Plaintiff,
they actually seeks information about unrelated cases which Plaintiff himself has no
knowledge. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s counsel and the witnesses identified in the
discovery requests are the only persons who are privy to the information requested.
-3-

However, neither Plaintiff’s counsel, his law firm, nor the witnesses are parties to the
instant lawsuit, and the plain language of the Rules does not permit this form of
discovery requests to non-parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34; University of Texas at
Austin v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337,1340 (10th Cir. 1996) ("[I]nterrogatories may only be
directed to a party to an action"). Therefore, Defendant’s discovery requests are
improper.
Plaintiff further argues that the requested discovery is improper because it would
create an undue burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Specifically, the requests would
require Plaintiff's counsel “to sift through more than 3,800 cubic feet of stored files.
Those 3,800 cubic feet of files contain approximately 2,800 redwells full of records.”
(Doc. 69, p. 7). As Defendant provided no legal argument to the contrary, the Court
finds the burdens inherent in preparing responses to the Defendant’s discovery
requests - particularly the significant amounts of time, money, and effort necessary to
compile the responses - are excessive in relation to the relevancy of the requested
information.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 65) is DENIED.

-4-

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 15th day of
June, 2011.

MONTE C. RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Party

-5-