South Mississippi Electric Power Association v. M & D Coatings, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER granting 34 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 8/4/15. (mhf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER
ASSOCIATION,
v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-278-DMB-SAA

M&D COATINGS, INC.,

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Defendant M&D Coatings, Inc. (“M&D”) has moved to compel production of various
documents and information from plaintiff South Mississippi Electric Power Association
(“SMEPA”) relating to the general operations and maintenance of a gas turbine that is the subject
of this litigation. Docket 34. SMEPA challenges the motion on grounds that responses to the
discovery requests are subject to a Confidentiality Agreement between itself and Siemens Energy,
Inc. (“Siemens”), a non-party to this action. Docket 37. SMEPA claims responses to these
requests would cause it to breach its contractual obligations with Siemens. Id.
M&D’s original motion to compel stated that the contested issues regarded SMEPA’s
responses to M&D’s Requests for Production of Documents Numbers 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19,
23, 24, and 25. Docket 35. However, M&D’s reply asserts that in addition to the previously
mentioned Requests which are contested by SMEPA, Interrogatories Numbers 4, 5, 6, 17, and 18
are also at issue. Docket 38, p. 4-9. In virtually all contested instances, SMEPA objects to the
discovery requests by stating that they are overly broad and irrelevant to the litigation at hand.
Docket 37. However, SMEPA’s response to the motion to compel provides no demonstration
how or why these requests are overly broad or irrelevant and goes on to state that SMEPA neither
intends nor desires to withhold responsive documents from M&D or any other party. Docket 37,
1

p. 1. SMEPA appears simply to rely on the backdrop of its Confidentiality Agreement with
Siemens and some loose reference to discussions between M&D and Siemens over a possible
Protective Order to justify its position. However, as has been discussed in this circuit as well as
by this court, a failure to provide reasoning as to the basis for objections such as these is wholly
insufficient. See McLeod, Alexander, Powel and Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th
Cir. 1990); see also Lafayette County v. Total Plan Services, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104967 (N.D.
Miss. Sept. 8, 2008).
After reviewing the pleadings and all evidence presented, the court finds that the discovery
sought is certainly relevant to this litigation and is indeed reasonably directed to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26. SMEPA’s objections to the contrary, its
contractual agreement with Seimens, cannot defeat its obligation to produce the requested
information when it is necessary for the ends of justice in a court proceeding. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED
that defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the
information sought in the discovery requests identified in the defendant’s motion to compel no
later than August 14, 2015. All documents subject to inspection and copying are to be made
available at SMEPA’s Batesville Station no later than August 14, 2015. Defendant is advised that
its access to any information provided under this Order is bound by SMEPA’s confidentiality
agreement with Siemens, except strictly for the purposes of and use this litigation.
This the 4th day of August, 2015.
/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2