Willaimson v. S.A. Gear Company, Inc. et al

Filing 100

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, and FINDING MOOT IN PART 84 MOTION to Compel as to AutoZone Defendants filed by Steve Williamson, Rhonda Christine LeMaster and 82 MOTION to Compel as to Defendant S.A. Gear filed by Steve Williamson and Rhonda Christine LeMaster. See Order for specifics. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/25/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVE WILLIAMSON and RHONDA
CHRISTINE LEMASTER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
S.A. GEAR COMPANY, INC., AUTOZONE, )
)
INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., and
)
AUTOZONE PARTS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-365-SMY-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
As an initial matter, this Court notes that it abandons all hope that the parties can cooperate
and conduct discovery in a manner anticipated by the adopters of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the cooperative rules of discovery were instituted. As such, this Court will take a
proactive role in assisting the parties in conducting discovery. Additionally, as stated at the
discovery dispute hearing held on August 24, 2016, this Court reminds the parties of the Court’s
power to appoint a Special Master for discovery and directs the parties to examine Doc. 179 in
Alford v. Aaron Rents, Inc., et al., 3:08-cv-683 MJR. In that case, this Court appointed a Special
Master for discovery pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 53(a)(1)(c). It should be noted that if a special
master is appointed, any costs associated with a special master WILL BE borne by the parties to
the action. The Court again urges the parties cooperate in a reasonable manner in the discovery
process.

Page 1 of 8

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is a products defect proposed class action in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants,
S.A. Gear Company, Inc., AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc., and AutoZone Parts, Inc.,
manufactured, distributed, advertised and/or sold defective timing chain tensioners (“the Part”).
On July 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification (Doc. 15) and, on
December 4, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc.
44) and a motion to strike and dismiss Plaintiffs’ nationwide and multi-class allegations (Doc. 42)
that are currently pending before the District Court.
On February 29, 2016, Defendants sought to stay further discovery pending resolution of
their motion to dismiss (Doc. 69), but said motion was denied (Doc. 72). As such, the parties
were directed to continue discovery in this matter in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling and
Discovery Order.
According to the Scheduling and Discovery Order, discovery prior to class certification
must be sufficient to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure are satisfied and, in order to ensure that a class certification decision be issued as
soon as practicable, priority shall be given to discovery on class issues (see Doc. 46, p. 3).
On April 12, 2016, the Court held an in-person discovery dispute conference to address
Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant S.A. Gear Company, Inc. (“S.A. Gear”) failed to adequately
respond to their written discovery requests. At the hearing, Plaintiffs were directed to provide
Defendant S.A. Gear with revised definitions for their interrogatories and requests to produce and
Defendant S.A. Gear was directed to supplement its objections to Plaintiffs’ requests (see Doc.
75).
Subsequently, on June 30, 2016, the Court held a status conference to ascertain whether
Page 2 of 8

any discovery disputes remained and discuss the schedule in this matter (see Doc. 77). At the
conference, the Court was informed there were a number of discovery disputes that remained
pending and, as such, the Court set this matter for another in-person discovery dispute conference
on July 25, 2016. Prior to the July 25, 2016 discovery dispute conference, Plaintiff filed a motion
to compel as to Defendant S.A. Gear (Doc. 82) as well as a motion to compel as to Defendants
AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc., and AutoZone Parts, Inc. (“AutoZone Defendants”) (Doc.
84). Following the July 25, 2016 discovery dispute conference, the Court issued a ruling on
portions of Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Doc. 91); however, the Court continued the discovery
dispute conference to August 24, 2016 to address the remaining disputes.
Following the August 24, 2016 discovery dispute conference, the Court hereby GRANTS
IN PART, DENIES IN PART, and FINDS AS MOOT IN PART Plaintiffs’ motions to compel,
as set forth below.
DISCUSSION
At the August 24, 2016, the Court heard argument concerning Plaintiffs’ complaints
regarding Defendants’ objections and responses to their interrogatories and requests to produce.
Largely, Plaintiffs’ complaints concerned Defendants’ use of what Plaintiffs characterize as
“boilerplate” objections and Defendants’ invoking objections while still providing a response to
the request subject to their objection.
Rule 33(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes that “the grounds for
objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” (emphasis added). Indeed, courts
have expressed serious reservations on the efficacy of incorporating generalized objections to a
specific request, noting that parties making general objections engage in a “dangerous practice”,
running the risk of having them summarily denied. Avante Int’l Technology, Inc. v. Hart
Page 3 of 8

Intercivic, Inc., Civil No. 07-169-DRH, 2008 WL 2074093 (S.D. Ill. May 14, 2008), *2-*3.
While boilerplate objections are typically disfavored and often overruled, Rule 33(b)(3) requires a
party lodging a specific objection to a discovery request to provide an answer to the request to the
extent it is not objected to. In other words, Rule 33 contemplates that a party may object to a
discovery request while still providing a substantive response. While the Court is mindful of
Plaintiffs’ argument that “there is no such thing as ‘full’ or ‘complete’” responses to
interrogatories that are subject to stated objections, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument
unavailing, particularly in light of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Zahran v. Frankenmuth Mut.
Ins. Co., wherein the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to provide further
answers to interrogatories as the defendant had fully answered the plaintiffs’ interrogatories
subject to various objections and the plaintiffs failed to set forth any instances in which the
defendant had not answered fully. 53 F.3d 334 (Table), 1995 WL 241392 (7th Cir. 1995).
In light of the foregoing, and after hearing the arguments of the parties, the Court hereby
issues its rulings on Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ answers and objections to their discovery
requests as follows:
I.

Defendant S.A. Gear’s Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories:
a. Interrogatory No. 8 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED. Defendant’s
objection is sustained as it is stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
b. Interrogatory No. 9 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it is stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
c. Interrogatory No. 10 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.
Page 4 of 8

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it is stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
d. Interrogatory No. 11 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it is stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
e. Interrogatory No. 12 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
f. Interrogatory No. 13 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
g. Interrogatory No. 16 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
h. Interrogatory No. 22 – Plaintiffs’ objection is MOOT.
i. Interrogatory No. 26 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
j. Interrogatory No. 27 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s

objection is sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s
answer is adequate.
II.

Defendant S.A. Gear’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production:
a. RFP No. 12 – Plaintiffs are ORDERED to withdraw the term “expression” from
Page 5 of 8

this request. Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED. Defendant’s objection is
sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s response is
adequate.
b. RFP No. 13 –Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED. Defendant’s objection is
sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s response is
adequate.
c. RFP No. 14 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED. Defendant’s objection is
sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s response is
adequate. However, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to
provide Bates ranges for product analysis reports by August 26, 2016.
d. RFP No. 15 – Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED. Defendant’s objection is
sustained as it was stated with sufficient specificity and Defendant’s response is
adequate.
e. RFP Nos. 62-64 – Plaintiffs’ objections are MOOT.
f. RFP Nos. 79 and 80 – Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to these
requests, producing documents set forth in its answer to interrogatory numbers 26
and 27.
g. RFP Nos. 24, 28, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, and 73 – Upon agreement of
the parties, insofar as these requests ask for identification of “any persons”, said
phrase SHALL mean “persons in a position of primary authority, managerial,
supervisory, officer, or executive positions” and insofar as these requests ask for
identification of “all documents”, said phrase SHALL mean “at least one
identifying document, for each responsive person or entity.”
Page 6 of 8

h. Plaintiffs are GRANTED LEAVE to amend and “re-ask” 10 requests for
production and 10 interrogatories propounded on Defendant S.A. Gear insofar as
Plaintiffs seek to amend their use of the phrase “substantially similar designation”
in various discovery requests. Any such amended interrogatories or requests
for production must be served on Defendant S.A. Gear by September 2, 2016.
III.

AutoZone Defendants’ Answers and Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories
and First Requests for Production
a. The Court finds that the AutoZone Defendants’ answers and responses to
Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests are sufficient (while acknowledging that
Plaintiffs may renew or set forth objections to said responses once an ESI protocol
is in place) and the Court declines to overrule Defendants’ objections as they
contend they have fully answered the requests.

IV.

Bates Ranges
a. Defendant S.A. Gear is ORDERED to provide bates ranges with its responses to
document requests by August 26, 2016.

V.

Privilege Log
a. The parties are ORDERED to provide a privilege log detailing documents that are
being withheld on the basis of privilege by September 2, 2016.
b. The privilege log must log documents from January 1, 2008 to April 2, 2015;
however, to the extent there are communications between a client and an attorney
(with no other outside parties involved), said communications do not need to be
logged.

Page 7 of 8

VI.

Miscellaneous Rulings
a. The parties are GRANTED LEAVE to file supplemental arguments concerning
their proposed ESI protocols and any objections to this Order by September 2,
2016. The supplemental arguments shall be no more than 10 pages in length.
b. Defendant S.A. Gear is GRANTED an extension of time, up to and including
September 2, 2016, to comply with the Court’s July 27, 2016 Order (Doc. 91) to
conduct a search of any records and documents, including emails and other
correspondence, in its control, for any information concerning the Part at issue,
including information related to its specifications, quality assurance, or contracts
entered into with suppliers, and provide any such documents to Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 25, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 8 of 8