EITZEN CHEMICAL (Singapore) PTE, LTD., v. Carib Petroleum et al

Filing 59

ORDER on Informal Discovery Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 8/18/2011. (mmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 10-23512-CIV-PAS
EITZEN CHEMICAL (SINGAPORE) PTE,
LTD., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CARIB PETROLEUM, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ON INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
This matter came before the Court on an informal discovery conference held
before the undersigned on August 12, 2011. The Honorable Patricia A. Seitz has referred
all discovery in this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge (DE # 28). The Court ruled
on two discovery matters at the conference, stating the reasons for the rulings on the
record. This Order sets forth these rulings, summarizes the reasons for them stated at
the conference, and incorporates by reference such reasons. Having heard from the
parties, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. With respect to Item # 1 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Telephonic Discovery
Conference (DE # 55), the parties shall confer in an effort (a) to identify specific
material(s), if any, under a specifically numbered item of Plaintiffs’ First Requests for
Production that has not been produced by Defendants, and (b) to resolve such discovery
issues. If the parties cannot reach a resolution regarding a specific request or part
thereof, Plaintiffs shall follow the Discovery Procedures set forth in the Order Setting
Trial Date, Pretrial Deadlines and Referral to Magistrate (DE # 28 at 4) to set the matter for

a hearing on the undersigned’s discovery calendar. The notice of hearing required by
the Discovery Procedures shall identify the specific request(s) and material(s) at issue.
In addition, Plaintiffs shall provide the undersigned a copy of all source materials
relevant to the discovery dispute, via hand-delivery or through a scanned PDF document
that is emailed to the CM/ECF mailbox ([e-mail]) when the notice of
hearing is filed. The notice of hearing shall also identify any general unresolved disputes
regarding scope of the discovery requests or timeliness of hearing regarding the
discovery dispute. In an effort to focus and clarify any remaining issues, Plaintiffs’
notice of hearing may be up to two pages in length (not including certificates of conferral
and service) in order to summarize Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the outstanding
issues. Defendants may file a summary of their responsive arguments, with the same
page limit restriction, within two business days after Plaintiffs file their notice of hearing.
2. With respect to Item # 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Telephonic Discovery
Conference (DE # 55), the parties indicated during the conference that the issue has been
resolved, with the exception of a potential dispute regarding costs associated with the
sample testing. Since no conferral regarding this potential issue had taken place prior to
the conference, the parties are directed to confer regarding this issue. If it remains
unresolved, Plaintiffs can set the matter for hearing in accordance with the Discovery
Procedures above (without any provision for summary briefing in the notice of hearing).
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, on August 18, 2011.

______________________________________
ANDREA M. SIMONTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished via CM/ECF to:
Counsel of Record
2