In re: NC Swine Farm Nuisance Litigation

Filing 163

ORDER denying 129 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 7/29/2016. (Romine, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
)
)

IN RE: NC SWINE FARM
NUISANCE LITIGATION

)

)
)
______________ )

Master Case No. 5:15-CV-00013-BR

0 R DE R

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL CASES

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Production by Defendant
of Alternatives and Other Lawsuits. [DE-129]. Defendant, Murphy-Brown LLC ("Defendant" or
"Murphy-Brown") filed a response in opposition to the motion. [DE-153]. The court held a
telephonic hearing on July 28, 2016 to further develop the issues, and the matter is ripe for ruling.
For the reasons stated in the hearing and incorporated herein, the motion is denied.
Rule 37 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] party seeking discovery
may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection" if a party fails
to produce or make available for inspection requested documents under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(3)(B)(iv). "[T]he court has 'substantial discretion' to grant or deny motions to compel
discovery." English v. Johns, No. 5:11-CT-3206-D, 2014 WL 555661, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 11,
2014) (unpublished) (quoting Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha ofVa., Inc., 43 F.3d 922,
929 (4th Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of documents regarding alternative waste and odor
control measures used in other states and on similar claims and lawsuits in other states. [DE-129]
at 1. At the hearing the parties reached an agreement to resolve the dispute regarding the production

of documents regarding lawsuits in other states. For the reasons stated at the hearing, the court finds
Plaintiffs' requests regarding alternative waste and odor control measures used in other states to be
overly broad and marginally relevant. Plaintiffs have access to information regarding the feasibility
of alternative technologies in North Carolina through a neutral third-party study conducted by N.C.
State that considered alternative methods, and Defendant has produced all documents in its
possession related to that study. Defendant has also produced documents related to alternative
technologies tested or implemented at its North Carolina farms, including those not at issue in this
litigation, which include some of the alternative technologies utilized in other states. Accordingly,
the motion is denied.
SO ORDERED, the 21_ day of July 2016.

2