Meyer et al v. Currie Tech Corp. et al

Filing 34

ORDER - In accordance with the findings made by the Court during the January 5, 2018 telephone conference, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 23 ) is granted, in part, as stated herein. Counsel for the parties shall confer and to discuss a deposition schedule. Within fourteen days of this Order, the parties shall jointly submit a proposed case progression schedule to [e-mail]. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARCIE MEYER, and
MICHAEL MEYER,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CURRIE TECH CORP., a Delaware
)
Corporation; and ACCELL NORTH
)
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; )
)
Defendants.
)

8:16CV542
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No.
23). The Court held a telephone conference with counsel of record on December 18, 2017.
However, because additional discovery responses had been received by Plaintiffs, the Court
continued the conference to January 5, 2018, to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to review the
supplemental responses and attempt to resolve outstanding issues.

Accordingly, the Court held a telephone conference on January 5, 2018 to discuss any
remaining discovery issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. At that time, counsel advised
that the majority of the issues had been resolved, but that a few matters necessitated resolution
by the Court.

In accordance with the findings made by the Court during the January 5, 2018 telephone
conference,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 23) is granted, in part.

2.

Defendants shall supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and

document production requests based upon the information Defendants received from Percey
Chien. Defendants must point to specific documents when responding to discovery requests,
rather than simply telling Plaintiffs to review previously produced information.

3.

Defendants shall supplement their response to Interrogatory No. 12 by stating

what knowledge is held by the individuals listed and what information those individuals have
regarding the specific testing that was performed on the subject-type Currie Tech Conversion
Kit.

4.

Defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 26 is sufficient at this time.

Defendants shall supplement their response to this Interrogatory as responsive information
becomes available.

5.

Defendants shall supplement their response to Interrogatory No. 28 by confirming

that they have requested responsive information from Percey Chien.

If Defendants have not

requested the information, they shall do so and inform Plaintiffs that such request has been made.
If additional information is received from Percey Chien, Defendants shall provide this
information to Plaintiffs.

6.

Defendants shall provide the supplemental discovery responses within fourteen

days of this Order.

7.

Counsel for the parties shall confer and to discuss a deposition schedule. Within

fourteen days of this Order, the parties shall jointly submit a proposed case progression schedule
to [e-mail].

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis
United States Magistrate Judge

2