Munster Steel Co Inc v. Crane 1 Services Inc
Filing
210
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 196 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court ORDERS that RNM need not produce documents in response to Munster's requests for production, #46, #52, and #54 until further order of the Court. Any renewed motion to compel addressing these requests must be filed by 11/22/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 11/07/2019. (jat) Modified on 11/8/2019 to update docket text to opinion and order(rmc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
MUNSTER STEEL CO., INC.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
CRANE 1 SERVICES, INC., et al.,
)
Defendants,
)
____________________________________)
)
CRANE 1 SERVICES, INC.,
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CINCINNATI CRANE & HOIST, LLC,
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-345-TLS-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant, Crane 1 Services, Inc., an Ohio Corporation
n/k/a RNM Holdings, Inc.’s Partial Motion to Reconsider [DE 196], filed October 22, 2019.
Defendant RNM asks the Court to reconsider in part its Opinion and Order compelling it to produce
documents in response to Munster Steel’s motion to compel. Munster filed a response on October
30, 2019, and RNM filed a reply on November 4, 2019.
I.
Background
On October 1, 2013, Munster signed a contract with an entity called “Crane 1 Services” that
required Crane 1 Services to design, supply, and install cranes and related equipment to Munster’s
new facility. According to Munster, by October 2014, Munster had identified “serious deficiencies”
with the cranes and the manner in which they were installed. Munster filed its initial complaint on
July 26, 2016, alleging breach of contract. Defendant “Crane 1 Services” answered, identified itself
as a Delaware corporation, and admitted that it had contracted with Munster. During discovery,
Defendant disclosed that Plaintiff had in fact contracted with “Crane 1 Ohio,” and that Crane 1
Delaware purchased the majority of Crane 1 Ohio’s assets in October 2015. Munster then filed an
amended complaint, adding a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against RNM (the entity formerly
known as Crane 1 Ohio), and claims of fraudulent concealment and fraudulent transfer and
conveyance against Crane 1 Delaware and RNM.
On August 23, 2019, Munster filed a motion to compel RNM to produce documents “relating
to the asset purchase agreement as well as Crane 1 Ohio’s financial condition.” Munster did not list
its corresponding requests for production (#38-55, 58-61, and 63) in its prayer for relief, but referred
to them in a citation within the motion. In its response, RNM indicated that it was “uncertain of the
specific document requests [to] which Plaintiff is attempting to compel responses.” In its reply,
Munster’s prayer for relief sought “documents in response to request nos. 38-55, 58-61 and 63.” The
Court found that RNM did not satisfy its burden to show that Munster’s discovery requests were
improper, and ordered RNM to “produce documents in response to [Munster’s] requests for
production #38-55, #58-61, and #63.”
RNM now asks the Court to reconsider its order. RNM argues that three of the requests (#46,
52, and 54) seek privileged information, and claims that it was not able to present its objections
because those individual requests were not explicitly discussed in the original motion. (RNM does
not address the fact that the requests were listed in a citation within the motion.) Munster argues that
the Court’s order should stand, because RNM never asserted privilege objections in its initial
responses to those requests, and states that the motion provided adequate detail as to what it was
requesting.
II.
Analysis
A request for reconsideration is not appropriate “for rehashing previously rejected arguments
2
or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse
Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1996). Instead,
a motion to reconsider is only appropriate where a court has
misunderstood a party, where the court has made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, where the
court has made an error of apprehension (not of reasoning), where a
significant change in the law has occurred, or where significant new
facts have been discovered.
Broaddus v. Shields, 665 F.3d 846, 860 (7th Cir. 2011) (overruled on other grounds by Hill v.
Tangherini, 724 F.3d 965, 967 n.1 (7th Cir.2013)) (citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese
Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990)). “Such problems [appropriate for reconsideration]
rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Bank of Waunakee, 906 F.2d at
1191 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101
(E.D.Va.1983)).
In brief, the requests disputed in this motion (#46, 52, and 54) sought communications
between the Crane 1 entities, and between RNM (formerly Crane 1 Ohio) and related company
Pfingsten Partners LLC, relating to this lawsuit. RNM argues that the disputed requests did not
directly seek financial information, and were therefore “beyond the scope” of the motion to compel.
However, some of those communications almost certainly “relate to the asset purchase agreement”
and to Crane 1 Ohio’s financial condition, which was what Munster explicitly requested in the
motion. Munster highlighted this in prior correspondence among counsel, after RNM responded that
no relevant communications existed. See Ex. C to Mot. to Compel [DE 179-3] (“As we discussed,
given the transfer of assets between Crane 1 Delaware and RNM as well as the breadth of the asset
purchase agreement, we find it hard to believe that no communications exist between these parties.”)
(specifically addressing #46 and 52 among other requests).
3
Munster’s motion to compel referred specifically to that correspondence. Although the
prayer for relief did not list the document requests by number, the motion stated Munster’s demands
for documents “in connection with the transfer of assets and current finances,” and (contrary to
RNM’s contention) listed what Munster saw as the corresponding requests: “With respect to the
documents Munster Steel sought in connection with the transfer of assets and current finances, Crane
1 Ohio objected to those Requests claiming they were ‘irrelevant’. (See Ex. B, ¶¶ 38-55, 58-61,
63).” Mot. to Compel [DE 179] at 3 (emphasis added).
However, the Court agrees with RNM that Munster’s prayer for relief was ambiguous. The
prayer requested documents “relating to the asset purchase agreement as well as Crane 1 Ohio’s
financial condition,” and it was not entirely clear whether this phrase referred specifically to requests
38-55, 58-61, and 63, or to some broader (or narrower) set of requests. The ambiguity put RNM in
the position of having to guess which requests it needed to address in its response brief. As the party
seeking discovery, it was Munster’s burden to be clear about what it was asking for. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 7(b)(1)(B) (a motion must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order”). The issue
was not clarified until Munster filed its reply, so this is not a “matter[] that could have been heard
during the pendency of the previous motion,” nor a “rehashing [of] previously rejected arguments.”
Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1270. In the interest of justice, and of protecting any legitimately
privileged information from disclosure, the Court finds that RNM should not have to produce
documents in response to requests #46, 52 and 54 at this stage.
To the extent RNM’s motion seeks a ruling on its privilege objections, that request is
premature. The privilege allegedly applying to communications between RNM and Pfingsten
(request #46) is the subject of another pending discovery motion, and will be addressed when that
order is adjudicated. As for the communications between RNM and Crane 1 Delaware (#52 and 54),
4
the motion does not provide enough information to conclude, as RNM argues, that all of the
requested communications are protected by the joint defense privilege. The joint defense privilege
applies to “communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint
defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective
counsel. . . . Only those communications made in the course of an ongoing common enterprise and
intended to further the enterprise are protected.” United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1467 (7th
Cir. 1997). RNM’s argument is based in part on the existence of a joint defense agreement that “was
just recently executed by the parties.” On the basis of the arguments presented, the Court cannot
assume that all relevant communications related to the lawsuit would be protected. To the extent a
dispute remains regarding production of those documents, the parties must confer about that issue
and – if necessary – file the appropriate motion.
Finally, RNM asks that the Court reconsider permitting Munster to seek fees for the motion
to compel, because Munster never requested fees. However, when a motion to compel is granted,
the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the [responsible] party” to pay the
movant’s reasonable expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Even if the Court had
denied the motion to compel as to the disputed requests, it could still, “after giving an opportunity
to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).
Therefore, Munster was appropriately permitted to file a request for fees, and RNM’s argument in
opposition will be considered contemporaneously with that request.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendant, Crane 1 Services, Inc., an Ohio Corporation n/k/a RNM Holdings, Inc.’s Partial Motion
to Reconsider [DE 196]. The Court ORDERS that RNM need not produce documents in response
5
to Munster’s requests for production #46, #52, and #54 until further order of Court. Any renewed
motion to compel addressing these requests must be filed by November 22, 2019.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2019.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
6
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?