Filing 200

ORDER granting Third-Party Spectra Colorants, Inc's 191 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs must supplement its Rule 26(a) disclosures with Walthall's confirmed add ress within 7 days. Spectra shall have 45 days from the receipt of the confirmed address to depose Walthall regarding damages. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/27/2017. (SWM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DIRECT ENTERPRISES, INC., OLYMPUS SEED TREATMENT FORMULATOR, INC., Plaintiffs, vs. SENSIENT COLORS LLC, Defendant. ______________________________________ SENSIENT COLORS LLC, Third Party Plaintiff, vs. SPECTRA COLORANTS, INC., Third Party Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:15-cv-01333-JMS-TAB ORDER ON DEFENDANT SPECTRA’S MOTION TO COMPEL In this overly-acrimonious discovery dispute, third-party Defendant Spectra Colorants, Inc., moves to compel Plaintiffs to supplement their Rule 26(a) disclosures to include the address of Plaintiffs’ witness, Dianne Walthall. [Filing No. 191.] Spectra also seeks leave to depose Walthall regarding damages, though discovery has closed. 1 Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that Defendants had opportunities to depose Walthall and failed to arrange a time before the deadline. 1 Spectra further seeks certain materials in connection with the deposition of Frank Dominiani. Plaintiffs’ response indicates that Plaintiffs have provided the documents, and Spectra did not reply on that issue. Therefore, the Court declines to rule on the matter, as it appears to be moot. The Court grants Spectra’s motion because Plaintiffs failed to timely supplement their disclosures. The Court declines to address the irrelevant finger-pointing regarding a failed attempt to depose Walthall on an earlier date, which unfortunately dominates the parties’ briefing. Instead, the Court focuses on the balance of equities, which favor Spectra. On one hand, Rule 26(e) is unequivocal: parties must supplement disclosures that they know to be incomplete. Plaintiffs knew their disclosure for Walthall was incomplete, yet they failed to discover and confirm Walthall’s address, despite having at least two phone conversations with her. On the other hand, the most recent request for supplementation that Spectra includes in its motion is a letter dated July 25, 2017. [Filing No. 191-8 at ECF p. 3.] In the letter, Spectra requests Walthall’s address by the end of the week (July 28), but it did not file its motion to compel until August 21. While Spectra could have filed its motion to compel more promptly, the fact remains that Plaintiffs delayed more than a year in providing Walthall’s address. And because Walthall is Plaintiffs’ witness, Plaintiffs should not be surprised by any information Spectra discovers via her deposition. Accordingly, the Court grants Spectra’s motion. [Filing No. 191.] Plaintiffs must supplement its Rule 26(a) disclosures with Walthall’s confirmed address within 7 days. Spectra shall have 45 days from the receipt of the confirmed address to depose Walthall regarding damages. 2 Date: _____________ 09/27/2017 _______________________________ Tim A. Baker United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana 2 The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to order Spectra to bear the costs and fees for Walthall’s deposition because Plaintiffs have not shown a departure from the norm is warranted. 2 Distribution: Joel E. Cape CAPE LAW FIRM PLC Christopher S. Stake DELANEY & DELANEY LLC Kathleen Ann DeLaney DELANEY & DELANEY LLC Kori Flake KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC Leslie B. Pollie KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC Eric C. McNamar LEWIS WAGNER LLP John Carl Trimble LEWIS WAGNER LLP Travis W. Montgomery PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP Jason Levin STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Libretta P. Stennes STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Kelly D.H. Lowry THE LAW OFFICES OF KELLY D.H. LOWRY, P.C. 3

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?