Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc. et al

Filing 106

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 12/6/2012: Motion hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel 67 held. Motion hearing on Defendants' motion to compel 95 is held and continued to December 7, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. in courtroom 1019. Plaintiff's motion to compel 67 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants have until December 21, 2012, to provide Plaintiff with the additional discovery they agreed to provide and ordered herein. (For further details see written opinion.) Mailed notice (ma,)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

CASE NUMBER
CASE
TITLE

Gary Feinerman
11 C 6594

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

Young B. Kim
December 5, 2012

Mervyn vs. Nelson Westerberg, Inc. et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Motion hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel [67] held. Motion hearing on Defendants' motion to compel [95]
is held and continued to December 7, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. in courtroom 1019. Plaintiff's motion to compel [67]
is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants have until December 21, 2012, to provide Plaintiff with the
additional discovery they agreed to provide and ordered herein.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
For the reasons stated in open court, the motion to compel [67] is granted in part and denied in part as
summarized below:
a. Interrogatory 10: The motion is denied as moot based on the agreement the parties reached on this particular
discovery request.
b. Interrogatory 11: The motion is granted in part. Westerberg Defendants are ordered to either supplement their
answer and describe their relationship with Defendant Atlas as it pertains to entering into contractor and lease
agreements referenced in the complaint or to produce the relevant agreements detailing their relationship. If the
responsive agreement is the same agreement Defendant Atlas has already produced to Plaintiff, Westerberg
Defendants must still confirm in writing that the same agreement is the only agreement responsive to this order.
c. Interrogatory 13: The motion is denied.
d. Request to Produce 1: The motion is denied as moot. Westerberg Defendants agreed to supplement their
answer and to clarify whether they withheld any documents based on any objections.
e. Requests to Produce 4 and 9: The motion is granted in part. Defendants are ordered to review the records
for the drivers and shipments already identified in response to the court's order of September 28, 2012, (R. 87),
and to describe or produce the following pertaining to the subject of incorrect line-haul amounts: (1) drivers'
written complaints with any governmental agencies; (2) drivers' written requests for arbitration or other forms
of alternative dispute resolution; and (3) drivers' written complaints (including emails) directed at Defendants.
In order to narrow the scope of the search for the last category of information, Plaintiff is ordered to provide, by
December 14, 2012, a set of key words to be used by Defendants to search their stored emails. Defendants may
11C6594 Mervyn vs. Nelson Westerberg, Inc. Et al

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
file a motion to modify this order by December 21, 2012, if the number of email "hits" is excessive. The court
expects the parties to discuss ways to reduce the number of "hits" by modifying and/or adding additional search
terms prior to the filing of a motion to modify this order.
f. Requests to Produce 5, 6, 7, 10, 14-16 and 19: The motion is denied.
g. Request to Produce 8: The motion is denied as moot based on the agreement the parties reached on
Interrogatory #10.
h. Request to Produce 11: The motion was withdrawn in open court.

11C6594 Mervyn vs. Nelson Westerberg, Inc. Et al

Page 2 of 2