RPM Pizza, LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company

Filing 186

PARTIAL RULING granting in part 163 Ex Parte MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses with Incorporated Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/20/2013. (NLT) Modified on 11/20/2013 to edit the text (NLT).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RPM PIZZA, LLC, D/B/A
DOMINO’S PIZZA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 10-684-BAJ-SCR

ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
PARTIAL RULING ON RPM’S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is RPM Pizza LLP’s Renewed Motion to Compel
the Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses.
document number 163.

Record

The motion is opposed by defendant Argonaut

Great Central Insurance Company (hereafter, “Argonaut”).1
Plaintiff RPM Pizza, LLC, d/b/a Domino’s Pizza (hereafter,
“RPM”) filed this second motion to compel discovery to essentially
renew its previous motion to compel discovery filed on September
16, 2013.2

In this renewed motion RPM adopted by reference its

previous motion and also adopted by reference Domino’s Pizza LLC’s
Second

Motion

to

Compel

the

Production

of

Documents

and

Interrogatory Responses filed on October 29, 2013.3
On November 15, 2013 the court issued a Partial Ruling on

1

Record document number 169. RPM filed a reply memorandum.
Record document number 179. Argonaut filed a sur-reply
memorandum. Record document number 183.
2

Record document number 141.

3

Record document numbers 161 through 161-5.

Domino’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery which addressed two
issues: (1) Argonaut’s assertions of privilege and the sufficiency
of its privilege log, and (2) the format of Argonaut’s production
of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

A review of all the

memoranda and attachments related to the present motion by RPM
shows that, on these two issues, RPM took the same position and
relied on the same arguments as Domino’s, and Argonaut relied on
the same arguments it made in opposition to Domino’s motion.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments and analysis
on these issues in this ruling.

Based on the analysis in the

Partial Ruling on Domino’s Second Motion to Compel Discover, RPM is
entitled to the same relief with regard to Argonaut’s assertions of
privilege/sufficiency of its privilege log and the format of ESI
document production.
Accordingly, RPM Pizza LLC’s Renewed Motion to Compel the
Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses is granted, in
part, as follows.
Argonaut has waived its claims of attorney client privilege
and/or work product protection as to any documents withheld from
RPM on these grounds and listed on its privilege logs, and must
produce the documents by November 25, 2013.
Argonaut shall comply with Instruction Number 5 included in
RPM’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents served by

2

RPM on July 29, 2013.4

This applies to all documents previously

produced to RPM by Argonaut that did not comply with Instruction
Number 5.

Any documents that must be re-produced in order to

comply with this ruling, must be produced by November 27, 2013.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 20, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

See, record document number 141-2, RPM’s First Set of
Request for Production of Document, p. 5.
3