Reynolds v. Professional Management, Inc et al

Filing 36

OPINION and ORDER. Defendant's Motion to Compel 28 is GRANTED IN PART as to Request for Production No. 12. The motion is DENIED in all other aspects. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 7/23/2015. (NOB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA
BILLINGS DIVISION

STEVEN REYNOLDS,
CV 14-80-BLG-SPW
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER

vs.
JEFF HUNNES, JACQUELINE A.
HUNNES, and WILLIAM STENE,
Defendants.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel. In the motion, the
Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff Steven Reynolds to respond to
Request for Production No. 12 and Interrogatory No. 19. Request for Production
No. 12 seeks documents supporting Reynolds's loss of earning capacity claim,
including W-2s, tax returns, and pay stubs. Interrogatory No. 19 seeks an
explanation as to how Reynolds calculated his loss of earning capacity claim.
In his response brief, Reynolds agreed to produce the relevant tax records
pursuant to Request for Production No. 12. Reynolds also agreed to provide the
computation for his lost earning capacity claim in his expert witness disclosures.
His damages expert disclosures are due July 29, 2015.
In their reply brief, the Defendants acknowledge receipt of the tax records.
However, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to know how Reynolds
1

calculated his lost earning capacity damages prior to the expert disclosures. The
Defendants also are uncertain that Reynolds has produced all relevant documents,
in addition to the tax records, under Request for Production No. 12. The
Defendants argue that Reynolds should be ordered to (1) fully answer Interrogatory
No. 19, and (2) provide all other documents responsive to Request for Production
No. 12 which have not already been produced.
The Court will allow Reynolds to answer Interrogatory No. 19 concurrently
with his expert disclosures. The Court notes that the disclosures are due within a
week of this Order, so the Defendants are not significantly prejudiced. The Court
grants the Defendants request for an Order for Reynolds to produce all other
documents responsive to Request for Production No. 12. Obviously, the Court has
no idea if such documents exist. But if there are other documents responsive to
Request for Production No. 12, Reynolds must produce them by August 17, 2015.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to
Compel (Doc. 28) is GRANTED IN PART as to Request for Production No. 12.
Reynolds must provide all other documents responsive to Request for Production
No. 12 which have not already been produced by August 17, 2015. The motion is
DENIED in all other aspects.

2

DATED this Z$._ day of July, 2015.

~ttJaa, __
SlJSANi.WATTERS
United States District Judge

3