LUSBY v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION

Filing 242

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 226 Motion to Compel. The request for an extension of time to supplement the motion to compel is DENIED, as moot, in light of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 8/8/2011. (NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
CURTIS J. LUSBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:03-cv-680-SEB-WGH

ORDER ON RELATOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, on a Motion to Compel filed by the Relator, United
States of America ex rel. Curtis Lusby (“Relator”), on June 15, 2011. (Docket
Nos. 226). Defendant, Rolls-Royce Corporation (Rolls-Royce), filed its Opposition
to Relator’s Motion to Compel on July 5, 2011. (Docket No. 231). Relator’s Reply
was filed on July 20, 2011, along with a Sealed “Exhibit A” filed on July 27, 2011.
(Docket Nos. 237, 240).
The Magistrate Judge, being duly advised, now issues the following orders:
1. Modified First Request for Production No. 15: The Motion to Compel
is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Rolls-Royce shall specify by Bates
Stamp number all monthly MRB reports referenced in the QADI 800. In all other
respects, the Motion to Compel is denied.

2. Modified First Request for Production No. 20: The Motion to Compel
is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Rolls-Royce is to produce any
additional customer audits which have not been produced during the years 1996
and 1997, or certify that none are in existence, within fifteen (15) days of the date
of this Order. In all other respects, the Motion to Compel is denied.
3. Modified First Request for Production No. 21: The Motion to Compel
is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Rolls-Royce shall provide copies of
the items listed in Exhibit B to Relator’s Reply (Docket No. 237) within fifteen (15)
days of the date of this Order, or answer an interrogatory establishing why those
documents do not currently exist or cannot be found. In all other respects, the
Motion to Compel is denied.
4. Modified First Request for Production No. 22: The Motion to Compel
is DENIED.
5. Second Request for Production No. 10: The Motion to Compel is
DENIED.
6. Modified First Interrogatories Nos. 11 and 12: The Motion to Compel
is DENIED, subject to Rolls-Royce providing a further definition of
“nonconforming” within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.
7. Modified First Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14: The Motion to Compel
is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. For those individuals named in the
answer to Interrogatory No. 14, Rolls-Royce shall provide appropriate last known
address or contact information for those named individuals. To the extent

-2-

Rolls-Royce contends that those individuals are members of the control group,
they must designate which of the individuals must be contacted through counsel.
8. Modified First Interrogatories No. 16: The Motion to Compel is
GRANTED in that Rolls-Royce is directed to confirm via a written interrogatory
response that the definition of “in its QADI” is a definition in “common usage” at
Rolls-Royce. In all other respects, the Motion to Compel is denied.
9. Modified First Interrogatories No. 24: The Motion to Compel a
further answer to Interrogatory No. 24 is GRANTED.
10. Third Request for Production No. 1: The Motion to Compel is
DENIED.
11. Third Request for Production No. 6: The Motion to Compel is
DENIED.
12. Third Request for Production No. 9: The Motion to Compel is
DENIED.
Any responsive documents or interrogatory answers to be produced shall
be served not later than fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. Because the
Motion to Compel is granted, in part, and denied, in part, no award of fees is
warranted. The request for an extension of time to supplement the motion to
compel is DENIED, as moot, in light of the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2011

__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

-3-

Electronic copies to:
Jeff M. Barron
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Michael R. Brunelle
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Jill Z. Julian
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]
Edward A. McConwell Sr.
MCCONWELL LAW OFFICES
[e-mail]
Koryn Michelle McHone
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Peter Abernethy Morse Jr
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Charles W. Ryan III
DOMBROFF GILMORE JAQUES & FRENCH, P.C.
[e-mail]
Joseph Striewe
[e-mail]
Richard P. Winegardner
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Judy L. Woods
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
[e-mail]

-4-