MERIDIAN FINANCIAL ADVISORS, LTD. D/B/A THE MERIDIAN GROUP v. PENCE et al

Filing 531

ORDER denying Pltf's 522 Motion to Strike (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 5/9/2011. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MERIDIAN FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD,
d/b/a THE MERIDIAN GROUP, as Receiver
for OCMC, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSEPH A. PENCE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-995-LJM-TAB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANT PENCE’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant Pence’s March 30, 2011, discovery requests generally
seeking information about Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. [Docket No. 522.] Defendant opposes
Plaintiff’s motion in part because Plaintiff has not yet responded to his requests in any way.
Defendant also questions Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer attempt, which Defendant characterizes as
simply a demand that he withdraw his discovery altogether.
Defendant’s position is correct and is consistent with the Court’s previous requirement
that Defendant respond to Plaintiff’s discovery with objections. [Docket No. 530 at 5 n.3.]
Plaintiff describes the discovery requests at issue with terms such as “outrageous” and
“inappropriate.” [Docket No. 522 at 2.] Even if these descriptions ultimately prove to be
accurate, firing off a motion to strike in response to a discovery request is not appropriate. See
Meharg v. I-Flow Corp., No. 1:08-cv-000184-DFH-TAB, 2009 WL 1867696, at *1 n.2 (S.D.
Ind. June 26, 2009) (“In addition to the fact that the Court is vexed by the number of overlapping
and bellicose discovery motions filed . . . in this case, ‘motions to strike are disfavored . . .
because they potentially serve only to delay.’”).

Therefore, within 28 days Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s discovery by producing
documents or making objections, or perhaps by moving for a protective order under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(c). Regardless of Plaintiff’s course of action, any future discovery-related
motion must be proceeded by a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute informally as required
by Local Rule 37.1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s discovery requests is denied.
[Docket No. 522.]
Dated:

05/09/2011
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

2

Copies to:
George William Bills Jr.
LAW OFFICE OF G. WILLIAM BILLS,
JR.
[e-mail]

Craig Morris McKee
WILKINSON GOELLER MODESITT
WILKINSON & DRUMMY
[e-mail]

Jeffrey R. Gaither
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail]

Stephen S. Stallings
STALLINGS LLC
[e-mail]

Kathleen A. Gallagher
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT LLC
[e-mail]

Jana K. Strain
GEIGER CONRAD & HEAD, LLP
[e-mail]
Ronald J. Waicukauski
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
[e-mail]

Sandy B. Garfinkel
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC
[e-mail]

Ann Marie Waldron
[e-mail]

Gregg Heinemann Jr.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC
[e-mail]

John H. Williams Jr.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC
[e-mail]

Max W. Hittle Jr.
KRIEG DEVAULT, LLP
[e-mail]

SCOTT HALL
308 Blue Quail Ct.
Bedford, TX 76021

Carol Nemeth Joven
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
[e-mail]
Thomas Livingston
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER
[e-mail]
C. Kent May
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC
[e-mail]

3