Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. et al

Filing 242

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Parties' Statement of Objections (Case No. 4:10-cv-03211, Filing No. 235; Case No. 4:10-cv-03212, Filing No. 237; Case No. 8:10-cv-03191, Filing No. 254) is overruled. Member Cases: 4:10-cv-03211-LSC-FG3, 4:10-cv-03212-LSC-FG3, 8:10-cv-03191-LSC-FG3Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IGOR KOZLOV,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO. 4:10CV3211

ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,
A Kansas Corporation; PAMELA SCOTT,
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Michael E. Scott, Deceased; ROADTEX
TRANSPORTATION CORP; ROADTEX CORP
- BAYONNE, NJ; ROADTEX CORP - COLTS
NECK, NJ; ROADTEX LOGISTICS, LLC; and
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT CORP;
Defendants.
ANDREI TCHIKOBAVA,

IGOR
CASE NO. 4:10CV3212

Plaintiff,
vs.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,
A Kansas Corporation; PAMELA SCOTT,
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Michael E. Scott, Deceased; ALBATROSS
EXPRESS, LLC; ROADTEX
TRANSPORTATION CORP; ROADTEX CORP
- BAYONNE, NJ; ROADTEX CORP - COLTS
NECK, NJ; ROADTEX LOGISTICS, LLC; and
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT CORP;
Defendants.
PAMELA SCOTT, Personal Representative of
the Estate of Michael E. Scott, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
IGOR KOZLOV; ALBATROSS EXPRESS,
LLC; UNICK, LLC; ROADTEX
TRANSPORTATION CORP; ROADTEX CORP
- BAYONNE, NJ; ROADTEX CORP - COLTS
NECK, NJ; ROADTEX LOGISTICS, LLC; and
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT CORP;
Defendants.

CASE NO. 8:10CV3191

This matter is before the Court on the Statement of Objections (“SOJ”) (Case No.
4:10-cv-3211, Filing No. 235; Case No. 4:10-cv-3212, Filing No. 237; Case No. 8:10-cv3191, Filing No. 254) submitted by Igor Kozlov, Albatross Express, LLC (“Albatross”),
and Andrei Tchikobava (collectively, the “Parties”). For the reasons stated below, the
objections will be overruled.
These consolidated civil cases arise out of a motor-vehicle accident (the
“Accident”) involving a tractor trailer driven by Michael E. Scott, deceased, and a tractor
trailer driven by Kozlov. On March 11, 2014 Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett issued an
Order (the “Order”) (Case No. 4:10-cv-3211, Filing No. 221; Case No. 4:10-cv-3212,
Filing No. 222; Case No. 8:10-cv-3191, Filing No. 240) denying Kozlov’s Motion to
Compel Discovery from Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“AWG”). In his Motion to
Compel, Kozlov moved the Court to compel AWG to answer certain interrogatories,
document production requests, and requests for admission (“RFA”). Kozlov sought
information regarding Scott’s previous accidents, Scott’s treatment related to his
previous accidents, and what AWG knew about Scott’s medical condition prior to
allowing him to return to work as a commercial driver. Kozlov has obtained Scott’s
medical records pertaining to an accident involving Scott that occurred in 1997.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), a judge may designate a magistrate judge
to hear and determine pretrial matters pending before the court. This Court may
reconsider any pretrial matter “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.

2

In the SOJ, the Parties object to the Order on the following respects:
(1)

The Parties object “to the ruling dealing with Motion to Compel, Case No.
4:10-cv-03211, filing no. 221, Case No. 4:10-cv-03211, filing 222, and
Case No. 8:10-cv-03191, filing 240. Plaintiffs rely on additional statements
from Dr. Brent Koprivica’s deposition dated June 23, 2013, contained in
the supplemental index attached.” (SOJ at 2 ¶1.)

(2)

The finding that Dr. Brent Koprivica1 was not Scott’s treating physician;

(3)

The “background findings . . . where the court indicated that ‘[Scott]
indicated that he had sustained a head injury about ten years earlier.’” 2
(Id. at 3 ¶ 3);

(4)

The finding that the information related to AWG’s receipt of particular
medical reports during the compensation claim is not relevant to this
litigation because “[w]hat AWG knew about [Scott’s] medical condition
in 1999 has no bearing on what AWG knew about [Scott’s] condition
when he was re-certified and returned to driving in 2006.” (Order at 4);

(5)

“The parties further object to the finding that the AWG objection to RFA #9
directed to AWG concerning TAS, M.D., on the basis that they seek
medical opinion that is unqualified to give. The parties do not seek medical
opinion from AWG, only that the opinion rendered by TAS, M.D. was

1

Dr. Brent Koprivica examined Scott as a rehabilitation expert for purposes of a workers’
compensation claim. (Case No. 4:10-cv-03211, Filing No. 223-2.) The Parties admit that Dr.
Koprivica was not Scott’s treating physician. (Filing No. 235 at 2 ¶ 2.)
2

The Parties do not dispute this fact, but object because Scott allegedly failed to
indicate further information, such as skull fractures and placement on Dilantin for life. (Filing No.
235 at 3 ¶3.)

3

accurate, and that AWG was provided with a copy of it.” (SOJ at
4 ¶ 5.); and
(6)

“The parties object to the court’s order that information sought in
interrogatories is irrelevant. Parties request the court to require AWG to
specify which documents are privileged and provide the rest.” (Id. at ¶ 6.)

With respect to (1) and (5), the Court is unable to discern the substance of the
objections. Construing (1) as an overview of the objections, the Court will address each
in turn.
Objections (2) and (3), regarding specific factual findings, are overruled. The
factual findings are not clearly erroneous. The Parties admit that the factual findings are
accurate. The Parties have failed to articulate an objection demonstrating that the
factual findings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
With respect to (4) and (6), Judge Gossett applied the following standard in ruling
on Kozlov’s Motion:
Under the federal rules, parties to a lawsuit may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense
of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial “if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. “Relevancy is broadly
construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if
there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the
claim or defense of any party.” Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 671
(D. Kan. 2006) (footnote omitted).
(Order at 3.) The Court has reviewed the Order and concludes that the Parties have not
demonstrated that Judge Gossett’s findings with regard to relevance were clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, objections (4) and (6) also will be overruled.

4

CONCLUSION
The Magistrate Judge’s Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and
the Parties’ objections will be overruled.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, the Parties’ Statement of Objections (Case No. 4:10-cv-03211,
Filing No. 235; Case No. 4:10-cv-03212, Filing No. 237; Case No. 8:10-cv-03191, Filing
No. 254) is overruled.
Dated this 18th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

5