Equal Rights Center v. Richman Property Services, Inc. et al
LETTER ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Conerning Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 15/2012. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-2698 FAX
J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 5, 2012
MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: The Equal Rights Center v. Richman Property Services, Inc.
Civil No. JFM-10-3038
I have reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with plaintiff’s motion to
compel (document 58). The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I am satisfied that under the circumstances the motion was not untimely. It made sense
for plaintiff to wait until defendants had completed their discovery responses before filing the
motion that outlined the remaining areas of disagreement between the parties. I am also satisfied
that to the extent that because of the way they were worded the interrogatories exceeded the
allowable number, defendants have waived the objection. Further, as to defendant’s complaint
that plaintiff is seeking information protected by the attorney/client privilege or the work product
privilege, defendants may in their response identify the communications they assert are
I am also satisfied that defendant should produce copies of the insurance policies
The one aspect in which plaintiff’s motion is denied is its request for financial
information. In my judgment ruling on that request should be deferred until a later stage of this
litigation, perhaps after a summary judgment ruling when plaintiff has made out a prima facie
case that it is entitled to recover punitive damages.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed as an
Very truly yours,
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge
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?