Roadbuilders Machinery Supply Co., Inc. v. Oshkosh Corporation
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Compel. Oshkosh's Motion to Compel is granted with respect to Document Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 18. Oshkosh's Motion to Compel is denied with respect to Document Req uest Nos. 4, 6, 14, 15, and 19. Plaintiff shall produce all requested documents, as ordered by the Court, within twenty days of the date of this Order. Defendant's expert witness shall have fourteen days after the production of the documents ordered produced to make necessary amendments to its expert report. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 5/4/2012. (aam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ROADBUILDERS MACHINERY
SUPPLY CO., INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
OSHKOSH CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 11-CV-2298–DJW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents and for Extension of Expert Report Deadline (“Motion to Compel”) (ECF No. 20).
Defendant requests an order compelling the Plaintiff to fully respond to Request for Production
Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 and 19, contained in Defendants Second Request for Production of
Documents to Plaintiff (“Document Requests”) (ECF No. 20-3). For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I.
Relevant Factual Background
Roadbuilders Machinery Supply Co., Inc., (“Roadbuilders”) brings this action against
Oshkosh Corporation (“Oshkosh”) alleging wrongful termination of the parties’ dealership
agreement without good cause, without notice, and without a chance to cure any alleged cause
for termination in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-701, et seq.1 Stated generally, Roadbuilders
and Oshkosh entered into a dealership agreement on October 1, 2005.2 Under the terms of the
dealership agreement, Roadbuilders was responsible for selling, marketing, stocking, and
1
Compl. ¶ 16 (ECF No. 1).
2
Id. Ex. 1.
servicing, among other things, certain industrial equipment manufactured by Oshkosh.3
Roadbuilders alleges that on December 6, 2010, Oshkosh terminated the franchise agreement,
effective immediately, in violation of Nebraska law.
Defendant asserts that Roadbuilders
consented to the termination.
Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 20) concerns its Document Requests, served on
Roadbuilders on January 26, 2012. Roadbuilders objected to Document Request Nos. 4 and 6,
alleging that responsive documents were previously produced.
Roadbuilders additionally
objected to Document Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 15 alleging that those requests were not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Roadbuilders objected to
Document Request Nos. 14 and 19, which both request the same documents, arguing that the
requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Roadbuilders asserted that Document
Request No. 18 is irrelevant.
Oshkosh, by its Motion to Compel (ECF No. 20), seeks to compel Roadbuilders to
respond fully and without objection to Document Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, and 19. The
Court will address each of these requests in turn.
II.
Conferral
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this district's local rules require a moving party
to confer with opposing counsel about the discovery dispute at issue before filing a motion to
compel.4
The Court is satisfied that the correspondence between the parties, attached as
exhibits,5 shows Roadbuilders and Oshkosh conferred in good faith about the subject matter of
3
Id.
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); D. Kan. Rule 37.2.
5
See Def.’s Mot. to Compel Produc. of Docs. and for Extension of Expert Report Deadline
(hereinafter “Mot. to Compel”) Ex. A (ECF No. 20-1) and Ex. B (ECF No. 20-2).
2
all of the disputed discovery requests. The Court finds both parties have complied with the
procedural conferral requirements before seeking judicial intervention in this matter. Moreover,
it does not appear additional attempts between the parties to resolve this discovery dispute would
be productive at this time.
III.
Requests for Production in Dispute
A.
Previously Produced
Although Roadbuilders did not make a formal objection, Oshkosh seeks to have the Court
compel responses to Document Request Nos. 4 and 6.
Oshkosh seeks this order because
Roadbuilders alleged that they had already supplied responsive documents to these document
requests. By contrast, Oshkosh asserts that Roadbuilders has not supplied responsive documents
to these requests and that additional and more detailed documents are necessary. The parties
agree that Roadbuilders has produced some documents, and the parties’ disagreement apparently
relates only to whether Roadbuilders has fully complied with Document Request Nos. 4 and 6.
Consequently, this Court will consider whether the documents that Roadbuilders has supplied in
response to these requests fairly satisfy the terms of the requests. While it is Roadbuilders’
mandatory duty to disclose documents that are lawfully requested, Oshkosh is not entitled to
alter the contents of its initial request by way of its Motion to Compel, whether by requesting
additional documents or documents that contain more detailed information than the initial
document request contemplated.
1.
Document Request No. 4
In Document Request No. 4, Oshkosh requested “[a]ll documents referring to, relating to
or showing your claim that Roadbuilders suffers lost business profits.”6 Roadbuilders responded
6
Mot. to Compel, Ex. C (ECF No. 20-3).
3
that these documents were “[p]reviously produced.”7 The parties agree that Roadbuilders has
supplied documents, including documents relating to the calculation of alleged damages,
customer purchase orders and in-house calculation of 10 years’ future lost profit, which largely
satisfy Document Request No. 4. But Oshkosh asserts that Roadbuilders failed to provide any
documents relating to variable expenses that should have been properly allocated to
Roadbuilders’ anticipated future profits.
It follows, Oshkosh’s argument proceeds, that
Roadbuilders’ response to this document request was insufficient. In response, Roadbuilders
argues that variable costs were deducted in calculating anticipated profits and any documents
showing these amounts have been produced. Moreover, Roadbuilders asserts that they have
produced any and all documents that are within a reasonable reading of Document Request No.
4.
The Court is satisfied that Roadbuilders’ production of documents in response to
Document Request No. 4 is sufficient.
Roadbuilders supplied detailed calculations of the
requested damages, including purchase orders, expenses and some related documents. Although
the parties dispute whether all documents related to variable costs that could be properly
allocated to profits from the sale of Oshkosh equipment were provided, the Court finds that
Roadbuilders’ response was reasonably sufficient to satisfy the request for documents related to
its claim of lost profits. To require Roadbuilders to provide every document relating to any
expense that might be properly allocable to a piece of Oshkosh machinery would be unduly
burdensome and go well beyond a fair reading of Document Request No. 4.
Moreover,
Roadbuilders will remain under the obligation to disclose documents responsive to this request
7
Id.
4
as they become available. Accordingly, Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel with respect to Document
Request No. 4 is denied.
2.
Document Request No. 6
In Document Request No. 6, Oshkosh requested:
“All documents referring to, relating to or showing your claim that Roadbuilders
lost investment in training, educating and employing personnel to sell, promote
and service Oshkosh equipment and products as a result of any alleged conduct of
Oshkosh.”8
In response to this request, Roadbuilders asserted that all responsive documents had been
“[p]reviously produced.”9
Oshkosh argues that Roadbuilders has not supplied responsive
documentation with respect to this request. Oshkosh argues that it is entitled to these documents
because it is essential that they understand how Roadbuilders’ calculated the requested damages.
Despite the argument that previously produced documents are non-responsive, Oshkosh neither
explains why the previously produced documents fail to satisfy Document Request No. 6 nor
notes any specific documents it believes would be responsive to this request. Roadbuilders
responds that all documents responsive to Document Request No. 6 were previously provided. It
argues that in response to Document Request No. 4 it included documentation for expenses
related to its employees. For these reasons, Roadbuilders asks this Court to deny this motion
with respect to Document Request No. 6.
The document disclosures already made by Roadbuilders are a reasonably sufficient
response to Document Request No. 6. Roadbuilders previously-produced expense calculation
accounts for employee-related expenses and allocates them to Oshkosh equipment. Providing a
calculation of employee expenses in relation to Oshkosh equipment is reasonable and responsive
8
Id.
9
Id.
5
to the request made in Document Request No. 6. To the extent it is necessary to obtain more
detailed information, Oshkosh must request such information with specificity that is absent in the
currently pending request. Additionally, to the extent that claims for investment losses or lost
future profits from the servicing of Oshkosh equipment have been dropped, it is unnecessary for
Roadbuilders to produce documents with respect to those formerly requested damages. The
Court finds the documents Roadbuilders produced detailing employee expenses are a sufficient
response to Document Request No. 6, and accordingly, denies Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel with
respect to that request.
B.
Relevancy Objections
Roadbuilders refused to produce some documents requested in Oshkosh’s Second Set of
Document Requests (ECF No. 20-3), asserting that the documents requested were not relevant to
the pending matter or that the requests were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Relevancy is broadly construed during the discovery phase, and a request
for discovery should be considered relevant if there is “any possibility” that the information
sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party.10 When the discovery sought
appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish that the
requested discovery does not come within the scope of relevance as defined under Rule 26(b)(1),
or is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh
the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.11 Conversely, when the relevancy of the
10
Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 377, 382 (D. Kan. 2005); Owens v.
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 221 F.R.D. 649, 652 (D. Kan. 2004).
11
Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Kan. 2006).
6
requested discovery is not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to
show the relevancy of the request.12
1.
Document Request No. 7, 8, and 9
Document Request Nos. 7, 8, and 9 request the production of related financial documents
that share such similar characteristics that the Court will address them with the same analysis.
Document Request No. 7 requests “[a]ll tax returns filed for the years 2000 through 2011.”13
Document Request No. 8 requests “[a]ll Financial Statements for the years 2000 through
2011.”14 Document Request No. 9 requests “[a]ll sales analysis for the years 2000 through
2011.”15 Roadbuilders responded to these requests by arguing that they were “not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”16 Because Roadbuilders is seeking
extensive financial damages for the next ten years of operation, which is the time the dealership
agreement would have been in effect without Oshkosh’s termination, Roadbuilders calculated its
damages claim on estimations based on the past ten years’ performance. Oshkosh responded by
requesting that Roadbuilders produce financial documents that disclose the details that underlie
Roadbuilders’ claim for estimated damages.
Oshkosh argues that the financial documents requested in Document Request Nos. 7, 8,
and 9 are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
because they contain information that Roadbuilders relied on in estimating its damages from the
12
Id. at 653; Cardenas 232 F.R.D. at 382.
13
Mot. to Compel, Ex. C (ECF No. 20-3)
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Id.
7
alleged breach of dealership agreement. Oshkosh provides the Court with a list of thirteen
specific purposes that the disclosure of the financial documents would serve. Roadbuilders
responds that the list of purposes is vague to the point of uselessness. Roadbuilders also objects
that the company-wide information contained in the requested documents is unnecessarily broad
to obtain discoverable evidence.
Finally, Roadbuilders provides the Court with specific
responses to each of the thirteen justifications provided by Oshkosh for seeking the documents in
question.
While the thirteen purposes are of varying persuasiveness, the Court is satisfied that the
documents requested in Document Request Nos. 7, 8, and 9 are relevant on their face.
Roadbuilders entire claim for damages is premised on a ten-year estimate that uses the
information contained in the requested documents.
Not only are the requested documents
relevant on their face, but their contents appears to be at the very center of the dispute over the
damages Roadbuilders will suffer as a result of Oshkosh’s alleged breach. Without access to
some of the information contained in these financial documents,17 Oshkosh would be unable to
analyze, understand, or respond to Roadbuilders’ claim for damages based on previous years’
performance. Because the requested documents are relevant on their face, the burden is on
Roadbuilders to prove that the documents are not relevant, or in the alternative, that it is so
17
The Court is aware that Oshkosh’s request is broader than the narrowest request necessary to
obtain the requested information because the documents contain company-wide information.
The Court is satisfied, however, that this concern does not justify denying the motion for three
reasons. First, Roadbuilders objected to Document Request Nos. 7, 8, and 9 on the basis of
relevancy. Secondly, although the documents contain company-wide information, there is no
indication that Oshkosh is seeking that information for the purpose of burdening or harassing
Roadbuilders. On the contrary, providing the relevant information contained in the documents
by simply producing the documents is the least burdensome way of providing Oshkosh with the
information to which it is entitled. Finally, Oshkosh notes in its Motion to Compel (ECF No. 20)
that it is entirely willing to consent to the designation of appropriate documents as “confidential”
in accordance with the Court’s prior Protective Order (ECF No. 13).
8
burdensome to produce the documents that any relevancy they have is outweighed by the burden
of production.
Roadbuilders has failed to meet this high standard. Not only is the information contained
in the requested financial statements highly relevant to their claim for damages, it also will likely
shed light on Roadbuilders’ operation with respect to Oshkosh’s equipment.
Roadbuilders
focused on the alleged over-breadth of the request in its response, but as addressed above,
production of the easily accessible documents containing the information is the least burdensome
way for Oshkosh to obtain this information.
The financial information contained in the
documents requested by Document Request Nos. 7, 8, and 9 is essential to Oshkosh’s defense in
this case claiming damages that were calculated on the basis of the information contained in
those documents. Roadbuilders’ assertion that these requests were not reasonably calculated to
obtain discoverable information is entirely without merit. Therefore, the Court grants Oshkosh’s
Motion to Compel with respect to Document Request Nos. 7, 8, and 9.
2.
Document Request No. 15
Document Request No. 15 requests “[a]ll documents referring to, relating to or showing
your efforts to obtain an alternative source for the Oshkosh products you previously sold.”18
Roadbuilders responded to these requests by arguing that they were “not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”19
Initially, Oshkosh argues that documents
showing Roadbuilders attempts to find a replacement product line are relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Oshkosh is entitled to explore
fully Roadbuilders’ mitigation efforts, as such information relates directly to Roadbuilders’ claim
18
Mot. to Compel, Ex. C (ECF No. 20-3).
19
Id.
9
for future damages. Roadbuilders counters this argument by asserting that mitigation of damages
is an affirmative defense, which must be pleaded or it is waived. Roadbuilders notes that
mitigation has not been pleaded and is thus not an aspect of the case. Therefore, it contends,
discovery related to mitigation is not relevant.
The Court agrees. Oshkosh failed to plead mitigation of damages as an affirmative
defense in its answer, and therefore this defense is waived. Oshkosh appears to concede this
result, for in its reply brief, it abandons its argument that the information is relevant for
mitigation purposes, and shifts gears propounding a different analysis.
In its reply brief,
Oshkosh contends Document Request No. 15:
“seeks documents showing attempts to find a replacement product line. Oshkosh
is entitled to these documents to test whether Roadbuilders ‘cared’ enough about
the Oshkosh product line to attempt to find a substitute. This relates directly to
Oshkosh’s allegation that Roadbuilders did not concentrate at all on the sale of
Oshkosh products, which lead [sic] to Oshkosh requesting voluntary termination
of the Agreement.”20
The Court is not convinced that the documents requested in Document Request No. 15 are
relevant on their face. When the relevancy of the requested discovery is not readily apparent, the
party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request. Oshkosh has
not carried this burden. Therefore, the Court denies Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel with respect
to Document Request No. 15.
3.
Document Request No. 18
Document Request No. 18 requests that Roadbuilders produce:
“All documents referring to, relating to or showing the customers to which you
sold Oshkosh wholegoods, parts, service or warranty work, from 2000 to the
present, including but not limited to, documents showing the amounts you
received from such customers in exchange for wholegoods, parts, service or
warranty work.”21
20
21
Reply Brief, at 9 (ECF No. 28).
Mot. to Compel, Ex. C (ECF No. 20-3).
10
Roadbuilders objected to Document Request No. 18, arguing that the request had no relevance to
the case because Roadbuilders was not claiming damages based on lost sales of parts or service
work.22 Roadbuilders did provide documents responsive to Oshkosh “wholegoods,” or new
equipment, but failed to produce documents responsive to Oshkosh’s other requests. Oshkosh
argues generally that Roadbuilders must produce documents responsive to Document Request
No. 18 because they are seeking damages for ten years.
Oshkosh asserts that because
Roadbuilders is seeking damages for ten years, they should not be permitted to refuse to produce
information on customer-related income. Moreover, Oshkosh asserts that information about
parts, service, or warranty work is relevant to their assertion that the termination of the
dealership agreement related to Roadbuilders’ failure to concentrate on selling Oshkosh goods.
Oshkosh does not dispute that Roadbuilders provided documents responsive to the “wholegoods”
element of Document Request No. 18. Roadbuilders responds that Oshkosh has never argued
that the termination was based on dissatisfaction with Roadbuilders’ execution of the dealership
agreement.
Moreover, Roadbuilders argues, the documents related to parts, service, and
warranty work are not stored separately and would be burdensome to retrieve.
The Court has reviewed Document Request No. 18 and concludes that it appears relevant
on its face. Roadbuilders is pursuing claims for damages arising from lost profits relating to the
allegedly wrongful termination of the parties’ dealership agreement. The documents relating to
Roadbuilders’ operations and profits relating to their dealership agreement with Oshkosh are
apparently relevant to determining both the legality of the termination and the appropriate
measure of any damages.
22
Accordingly, Roadbuilders has the burden of proving that the
Id.
11
documents requested fall outside of relevance as defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) or that the
marginal relevance of documents is of such little value to the action that the potential harm by
compelling the production outweighs the general presumption in favor of relevance.
Roadbuilders has failed to meet this high burden.
Although the documents requested in
Document Request No. 18 might not provide direct numerical guidance on the issue of damages,
the requested financial information is relevant to the determination of how Roadbuilders
calculated its alleged damages. Moreover, the legality of the dealership agreement’s termination
could turn on information contained in Roadbuilders’ business files that specifically contain
information relating to the parties’ dealership relationship.
The Court is satisfied that
Roadbuilders has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the documents requested are
not relevant. Consequently, Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel with respect to Document Request
No. 18 is granted.
C.
Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome Objection
This Court has held on several occasions that a document request may be vague, or
overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face if the request uses an omnibus term such as
“relating to,” “pertaining to,” or “concerning.”23 That rule, however, applies only when the
omnibus term is used with respect to a general category or broad range of documents.24 As this
Court has previously noted, a request may be overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face “if
it is couched in such broad language as to make arduous the task of deciding which of numerous
documents may conceivably fall within its scope.”25 A request seeking documents relating to a
23
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kan., 221 F.R.D. 661, 667 (D. Kan. 2004).
24
Id. at 667–68.
25
Cardenas, 232 F.R.D. at 382 (quoting Audiotext Commc’ns Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telecom,
Inc., 1995 WL 625962, at *6 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 1995)).
12
broad range of items “requires the respondent either to guess or move through mental gymnastics
. . . to determine which of many pieces of paper may conceivably contain some detail, either
obvious or hidden, within the scope of the request.”26 When, however, the omnibus phrase
modifies a sufficiently specific type of information, document, or event, rather than large or
general categories of information or documents, the request will not be deemed objectionable on
its face.
1.
Document Request Nos. 14 and 19
Both Document Request Nos. 14 and 19 request “[a]ll documents referring to, relating to
or showing your efforts to market or sell Oshkosh products, from year 2000 to the present.”27 In
response to both requests, Roadbuilders “[o]bject[ed] as overbroad and unduly burdensome as to
any documents that relate to plaintiff[’]s efforts includes their entire operations.
Without
waiving that objection[,] Roadbuilders has produced all the machine files.”28 Roadbuilders
based its objection on the broad language of Document Request Nos. 14 and 19, arguing that
precise compliance with the request would result in the disclosure of marketing and sales efforts
that expand far beyond the dealership relationship at issue here. Roadbuilders overbreadth
argument is limited to the extent that the requests contained in Document Request Nos. 14 and
19 extend beyond the marketing and sales of Oshkosh products. Oshkosh responded by arguing
that documents relating to the sales techniques employed by Roadbuilders would potentially lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence because it would cast light on the issue of whether
26
Id. at 382 (quoting Audiotext Commc’ns Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telecom, Inc., 1995 WL 18759
(D. Kan. Jan. 17, 1995)).
27
Mot. to Compel, Ex. C (ECF No. 20-3).
28
Id.
13
Oshkosh’s termination of the dealership agreement was lawful. Oshkosh did not, however,
specifically address Roadbuilders’ claim that the documents requested in the pertinent
documents were overbroad.
Applying the overly broad standard set forth above, the Court finds that these requests are
so all-encompassing as to make them vague, or overly broad and unduly burdensome on their
face. The omnibus term relating to “or referring to” modifies any effort, regardless of its
relevance to the present matter, to sell or market Oshkosh and potentially other equipment for a
period of over eleven years. The terms of the request thus include a large number or general
category of things or documents. Thus, the requests are objectionable because they would require
Roadbuilders to sift through an enormous number of documents amassed over eleven years to
find any document relating to its dealership relationship with Oshkosh. Moreover, the request
seeks to have Roadbuilders produce a potentially incalculable number of documents regarding
marketing and sales techniques—many of which likely have little or no relevance to the
disposition of this case. While the Court is cognizant that many of the documents that fall within
the enormous scope of Document Request Nos. 14 and 19 are likely relevant and important to
this litigation, it is incumbent upon Oshkosh to reasonably define and request the documents it
needs for this litigation. Moreover, Roadbuilders complied with a portion of the disputed
document requests and produced the pertinent machine files. Accordingly, Oshkosh’s Motion to
Compel with respect to Document Request Nos. 14 and 19 is denied.
IV.
Extension of Time
On March 30, 2012, Oshkosh disclosed its expert report prepared by Mark Vianello.
Vianello prepared the expert report without access to the documents the Court has ordered
Oshkosh to produce in this Memorandum and Order. Oshkosh asserts that Vianello’s expert
14
report may be incomplete or require amendment in light of the documents produced as a result of
this Motion to Compel. The Court is satisfied that the documents discussed above may affect the
contents of the previously submitted expert report. Accordingly, the Court grants Oshkosh and
Vianello fourteen days after Roadbuilder’s production of the documents required herein to
review the documents and make any necessary amendments to the expert report.
V.
Costs
Roadbuilders asks the Court to award its expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in
responding to the present Motion to Compel. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C), when a court
grants in part and denies in part a motion to compel, as is the case here, the court may “apportion
the reasonable expenses for the motion.”29 Here, the Court finds it appropriate and just for the
parties to bear their own expenses and fees incurred in connection with this Motion to Compel.
The Court therefore denies Roadbuilder’s request for expenses.
VI.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 20) is granted in part
and denied in part. Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel is granted with respect to Document Request
Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 18. Oshkosh’s Motion to Compel is denied with respect to Document Request
Nos. 4, 6, 14, 15, and 19. Because Oshkosh’s expert witness prepared the expert report without
access to the documents that Roadbuilders must produce as a result of this Order, the Court will
grant an extension of fourteen days after the production of said documents for Oshkosh to make
any necessary amendments to the expert report. Finally, the Courts finds that both parties should
bear their own costs incurred in connection with this Motion to Compel.
29
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
15
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 20) is
granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall produce, without asserting any
objections, all requested documents, as ordered by the Court herein, within twenty days of the
date of this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s expert witness shall have fourteen days
after the production of the documents ordered produced herein to make necessary amendments to
the expert report.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party should bear its own costs associated with
this Motion to Compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas, on this 4th day of May 2012.
cc:
All counsel
s/ David J. Waxse
David J. Waxse
United States Magistrate Judge
16
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?