Great Plains Trucking, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Defendant Navistar, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff. SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 9/14/2021. (kf)

Case 5:15-cv-04850-TC-GEB Document 65 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
GREAT PLAINS TRUCKING, INC.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NAVISTAR, INC. and
)
ROBERTS TRUCK CENTER OF
)
KANSAS, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________)

Case No. 15-4850-TC-GEB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Navistar, Inc.’s Motion to Compel
Discovery from Plaintiff (ECF No. 60). On September 10, 2021, the undersigned held a
Zoom discovery conference. Plaintiff appeared through counsel, Warren Armstrong,
Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., and Casey Yingling. Defendants appeared through counsel, Drew
Thomas, John Patterson, and Tyler Stewart.
Following a thorough discussion during the discovery conference, counsel for
Plaintiff conferred with its client. Plaintiff prefers to supplement its responses and complete
document production as discussed during the conference in lieu of submitting a formal
response to Defendant’s motion. Defendant Navistar, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Discovery
from Plaintiff (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff
shall supplement its discovery responses and document production as set out below.

1

Case 5:15-cv-04850-TC-GEB Document 65 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 3

Responses to Request for Production Nos. 69 and 70
These requests seek documents related to Plaintiff’s financial condition and/or lost
revenue and seek documents including tax returns, financial statements, profit and lost
statements, ledgers, income statements, balance sheets, and financial reports from 2008
through the present. Plaintiff objects the requests are overbroad in time and scope, are
vague, and seek documents not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence but
responded that without waiving its objections, “Please see documents produced for the
relevant time period.”
The Court disagrees the requests are vague. Where Plaintiff alleges they have
suffered financial loss due to the diminished resale value of the trucks at issue, lost profits
and/or cover damages, and other economic damages, the Court finds the requests are
relevant to the claims and defenses in the case and proportional to the needs of the case.
However, the Court agrees the requests are overbroad in time. The timeframe at
issue in the Amended Complaint is 2010-2012. Plaintiff agreed to produce documents from
two years prior to the purchase of the trucks at issue through the period it owned or leased
those trucks. Thus, The Court finds seeking financial documents from 2008 is not
overbroad.
Plaintiff, however, no longer owns the trucks at issue, so requesting financial
documents through the present is overbroad and burdensome. The Court finds the end date
for the production of Plaintiff’s financial documents is two years after the last of the trucks
at issue were sold. Plaintiff shall produce the requested financial documents for the time
period above no later than October 1, 2021.
2

Case 5:15-cv-04850-TC-GEB Document 65 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 3

Responses to Request for Production No. 71
This request seeks depositions or other testimony of Plaintiff’s employees or
officers that in any way pertains to its profits, income, expenses, revenue, or other financial
matters. Plaintiff objects the request is overbroad in time and scope, is vague, and seeks
documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. It went on
to answer saying “[a]fter a diligent search Plaintiff has not been unable to locate any
documents responsive to Defendant’s request.” After a through discussion with Plaintiff
and learning that no documents were withheld from production pursuant to Plaintiff’s
objection, the Court finds no additional response to this request is necessary.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff shall produce documents responsive to Request for
Production Nos. 69 and 70 as set out above. The Court will set a Zoom Status Conference
on November 8, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status
of written discovery and whether any modification to the Scheduling Order is needed.
THEREFORE, Defendant Navistar, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Discovery from
Plaintiff (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 14, 2021.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3