Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC et al v. Nader et al

Filing 104

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion to Compel. See attached. (LTS, law2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
DUNKIN’ DONUTS FRANCHISED
)
RESTAURANTS LLC, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 13-13023-LTS
)
ANTON NADER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. NO. 91)
April 16, 2015
SOROKIN, J.
The defendants seek an order compelling the plaintiffs to remedy various alleged
deficiencies in their discovery responses. The plaintiffs have responded to the motion, and the
Court heard oral argument on April 14, 2015. Many issues raised in the motion have been
rendered moot based on the plaintiffs’ continuing document production in the time since the
motion was filed. After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the representations
made during the motion hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to compel is
ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1.

Insofar as the motion relates to the production of documents referenced by the
plaintiffs in their responses to the defendants’ interrogatories, it is DENIED as
moot.1 The parties have agreed that the plaintiffs will complete production of all

1

This issue resolves the motion with respect to interrogatories 2, 3, 7(a), and 7(c) to
DDFR, and interrogatories 2, 3, 6, and 7 to DBI.

such documents by April 30, 2015.
2.

Insofar as the motion seeks an order requiring the plaintiffs to provide Bates
numbers for all documents referenced in their interrogatory responses, it is
DENIED. The plaintiffs’ written responses provide sufficient specificity to
satisfy Local Rule 33.1(b)(1).

3.

Insofar as requests for production 2(a), 2(b), 2(l), 2(m), 3(c), and 9 are concerned,
the motion is DENIED as moot based on the plaintiffs’ representations that such
documents have been produced or will be produced by April 30, 2015.

4.

Insofar as request for production 1 is concerned, the motion is ALLOWED to the
extent it seeks the following specific categories of documents: a) for the years
2007 through the present, annual reports, assessments, or other documents
reflecting the general standing or ranking of each of the defendant franchises
and/or of defendant Nader’s network of franchises among all Dunkin’ franchises
nationwide and/or in the relevant region, if such documents exist; and b)
documents or information describing or explaining the manner in which the list
described by the parties as the “persona non grata” list (which has been produced
and includes Mr. Tallo’s name) was compiled, i.e., how individuals came to be
included on the list. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED as moot as to request for
production 1, based on the plaintiffs’ representations that documents responsive
thereto (as the request has been narrowed by the defendants) have been produced
or will be produced by April 30, 2015.

5.

Insofar as interrogatory 10 to DDFR and request for production 11 are concerned,

2

the motion is ALLOWED. Both requests are reasonable in scope and seek
information and documents relevant to the defendants’ counterclaims.
6.

Insofar as interrogatory 11 to DDFR is concerned, the motion is DENIED.

7.

Insofar as interrogatory 12 to DDFR and request for production 8 are concerned,
the motion is ALLOWED to the extent the requests seek information regarding
whether and how the specific loss prevention employees involved in the
investigation(s) of the defendants were compensated or formally reviewed in any
manner based on their role(s) in the decision to terminate the defendants.
Otherwise, the motion is DENIED as to interrogatory 12 and request for
production 8.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

3