Jackson Harmon Enterprises, LLC, v. Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc.

Filing 116

ORDER -- In the interests of judicial economy, to avoid entering potentially inconsistent and unnecessary rulings, and to curtail potentially unnecessary expenditures of the parties time and resources to comply with or further litigate discovery orders, the ruling on the plaintiffs motion to compel, 78 , and the defendants motion for protective order, 94 , is held in abeyance pending a ruling on the parties dispositive motions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (BHC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JACKSON HARMON ENTERPRISES,
LLC, A Nebraska Limited Liability
Company;

8:13CV3194

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
vs.
INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS, INC.,
An Illinois Corporation;
Defendant.
On August 4, 2014, the court entered a memorandum and order ruling on a motion
to compel filed by the plaintiff and a motion for protective order filed by the defendant.
(Filing No. 67). Pending before me is the plaintiff’s second motion to compel, along with
its request to extend the discovery deadlines, (Filing No. 78), and the defendant’s second
motion for protective order. (Filing No. 94). These second motions address topics that
were not raised in the parties’ prior motions: Neither party claims the court’s prior order
was violated.
The court has thoroughly reviewed the parties’ submissions on the currently
pending motions, and the parties’ complex history of discovery concessions and
modifications to avoid, albeit unsuccessfully, further court intervention.

The primary

issue is whether the defendant must produce documents showing plaintiff’s delivery of
vehicles, trailers, campers, etc. to IAA’s outlying lots1 in Omaha; documents reflecting
all hauling transfer fees paid to any tower; and documents showing the movement and
delivery locations of all vehicles and trailers for which a tow bill was issued to Midwest.
Midwest states that for each tow delivered to an outlying lot, Midwest was required to
make a stop in addition to the stops at the pickup point and the stop at the 52nd Street

1

“Outlying lot” is defined as any lot other than the 52nd Street Lot.

Lot, (Filing No. 80, at CM/ECF p. 4, ¶ 9),2 and Midwest is therefore entitled to recover a
2-stop charge for each of these tows.

The discovery motions raise arguments of alleged false, deceptive and misleading
discovery practices by Defendant and its counsel, countered by arguments of dilatory and
inattentive trial preparation by Plaintiff’s counsel. But a threshold question is whether
the discovery requested is relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of relevant
information, and the answer to this question may impact the court’s decision on whether
to deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel as untimely filed. That is, the court need not decide
if Plaintiff’s counsel was untimely, but nonetheless diligent in light of Defendant’s
alleged misconduct, if the discovery requested in Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
irrelevant. See, e.g., Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716–17 (8th Cir.
2008).

The defendant has moved for summary judgment claiming that under the terms of
the parties’ contract and the undisputed facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover 2-stop
charges. (Filing No. 89). In contrast, the plaintiff has moved for partial summary
judgment, (Filing No. 84), on the issue of contract liability. Judge Gerrard’s ruling on
these pending motions will either moot the pending discovery motions, or it will inform

2

Under the Tower Service Level Agreement (TSLA), the tower must:
Tow to IAA, drop vehicle in Drop Zone, leaving 4-foot buffer around
vehicle.
Set the emergency brake and turn the ignition switch to “OFF”.
The completed Tow Bill and shop receipt are brought to IAA Office.
The Tow Bill blank copy is left in the car or as directed by Branch
Manager.
Key control and title procedures as directed by the Branch Manager.

(Filing No. 80, at CM/ECF p. 10). The plaintiff claims a 2 stop charge was earned
whenever Midwest delivered a vehicle to an outlying IAA lot and was then required to
deliver the tow bill to the 52nd street lot.

2

the parties and the undersigned magistrate judge on the contract’s interpretation. That
interpretation may, in turn, impact the ruling on the pending discovery motions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:

1)

In the interests of judicial economy, to avoid entering potentially
inconsistent and unnecessary rulings, and to curtail potentially unnecessary
expenditures of the parties’ time and resources to comply with or further
litigate discovery orders, the ruling on the plaintiff’s motion to compel,
(Filing No. 78), and the defendant’s motion for protective order, (Filing No.
94), is held in abeyance pending a ruling on the parties’ dispositive
motions. (Filing Nos. 84 & 88).

2)

If the defendant’s summary judgment motion is denied, the undersigned
magistrate judge will promptly rule on the pending discovery motions, and
will further consider any motions by the parties to extend the current
progression order deadlines, including the trial and pretrial conference
settings.

November 26, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3