WRM AMERICA INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Compel; denying 52 Motion for hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 6/17/2013. (NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
WRM AMERICA INDEMNITY
COMPANY, INC., as Subrogee of
SAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS
COLLEGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. a/k/a SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-73-WTL-WGH

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed May 8, 2013.
(Docket No. 46). Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to the motion on
May 16, 2013. (Docket No. 48). No reply brief has been filed. On June 12,
2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Hearing. (Docket No. 52). That
motion is DENIED.
The Magistrate Judge, being duly advised, now GRANTS, in part, and
DENIES, in part, the Motion to Compel, as follows:
1. Request for Production No. 2: The motion is granted as the term
“system” is not vague, ambiguous, or confusing. Defendant’s own documents
refer to a “system” being installed. Defendant should provide those guidelines,
specifications, rules, standards, regulations, or standards of care relied upon or

utilized by it in completing the work on the campus under the contract at issue
in this case.
2. Request for Production No. 3: The motion is denied. However, if
Defendant intends to use expert testimony which purports to incorporate any
such standards or regulations, it must provide a copy of the standards or
regulations used by its expert in rendering the expert’s opinion.
3. Request for Production No. 5: The motion is denied as not relevant.
4. Request for Production No. 11: The motion is granted to the extent
that Defendant must produce all documents utilized or relied upon in performing
any work on the basement of Guerin Hall in 2004.
5. Request for Production No. 14: The objection is overruled, and the
motion is granted. Defendant shall provide the qualifications of each person
involved in the work performed at St. Mary’s, whether it involves arguable design
and/or installation.
6. Request for Production No. 16: The relevancy objection is overruled,
and the motion is granted.
All materials required to be produced under this order are to be produced
within twenty (20) days of this date.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2013

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

Served electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record via email.

-2-