People's United Bank v. Mountain Home Developers of Sunapee, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting in part and holding in abeyance in part 18 Motion to Compel; denying 19 Motion for Protective Order; deferring ruling on 20 Motion to Compel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(kad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
People’s United Bank
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-393-LM

Mountain Home Developers
of Sunapee, LLC, et al.
O R D E R
On March 12, 2012, a telephone conference was held on
plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. no. 18); defendants’ motion
for a protective order (doc. no. 19); and defendants’ motion to
compel (doc. no. 20).

Attorneys Daniel P. Luker and Michael

Brendan Doherty appeared for plaintiff, and Attorneys Paul
Kfoury, Sr., and Conrad Cascadden appeared for defendants.
Consistent with matters discussed during the telephone
conference, the court issues the following orders:
Document No. 18 is granted to the extent that defendants
have failed to comply with the requirement laid out in Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iii) with respect to their initial disclosures of
computation of damages.

Defendants offered no basis, in law or

fact, that justified their refusal to make these initial
disclosures.

There can be no dispute that plaintiff needs this

discovery before the depositions that are scheduled to begin
this Thursday.

Accordingly, within twenty-four (24) hours of

the entry of this order, defendants shall provide plaintiffs
with the initial disclosures of their computation of damages as
required in Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

The court holds in abeyance

the portion of plaintiff’s motion (doc. no. 18) requesting
sanctions for defendants’ failure to comply with Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iii) until such time as defendants have an
opportunity to file a written objection thereto.

The court

notes that, during this telephone conference, defendants could
offer neither a legal nor factual justification for their
failure to comply with Rule 26(A)(1)(A)(iii).
Document no. 19 is denied as defendants could not
articulate any good cause for continuing the depositions
currently scheduled to begin this Thursday.
Document no. 20 is not ripe, and a ruling on the motion is
not necessary prior to the depositions scheduled to begin this
Thursday.

Thus, the court defers ruling on this motion until it

is ripe.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 13, 2012
cc: Conrad WP Cascadden, Esq.
Michael Brendan Doherty, Esq.
Paul R. Kfoury, Sr., Esq.
Daniel P. Luker, Esq.
2