Baker & Taylor, Inc. v. College Book Rental Company, LLC et al
Filing
92
ORDER denying 81 Motion to Compel Production from Defendant David Griffin by Baker & Taylor, Inc.; FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Griffin shall complete and/or supplement his responses to Plaintiffs Document Requests, as directed herein, on or before March 17, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 3/10/2014. (eef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-553-MOC-DCK
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COLLEGE BOOK RENTAL COMPANY, LLC, )
CHARLES JONES, and DAVID GRIFFIN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff Baker & Taylor’s Motion To
Compel Production From Defendant David Griffin” (Document No. 81). This motion has been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is ripe for
review.
Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Baker & Taylor, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “B&T”) filed its “Complaint” (Document
No. 1) against College Book Rental Company, LLC (“CBR”), Charles Jones (“Jones”), and
David Griffin (“Griffin”) (collectively “Defendants”) on August 24, 2012.
The Complaint
asserts that Defendant CBR owes Plaintiff “$19,437,734.73 for Books CBR ordered, received,
and accepted from Baker & Taylor, but for which CBR did not remit payment to Baker &
Taylor.” (Document No. 1, p.5). The Complaint further asserts that “Jones and Griffin each
guaranteed payment of all obligations of CBR to Baker & Taylor by executing personal
guaranties.” (Document No. 1, p.3).
On December 19, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ “Joint Motion To Amend The
Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan” (Document No. 79), with modification. (Document
No. 80). The current deadlines in this matter are as follows: discovery – March 28, 2014;
mediation – April 4, 2014; motions – April 11, 2014; and trial October 6, 2014. Id.
“Plaintiff Baker & Taylor’s Motion To Compel Production From Defendant David
Griffin” (Document No. 81) was filed on January 25, 2014. As of January 25, 2014, Plaintiff
sought an Order compelling the production of five (5) categories of information. (Document No.
81, pp.1-2; Document No. 82, pp.1-2). “Defendant David Griffin’s Response In Opposition…”
(Document No. 84) was timely filed on February 13, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff’s
“Reply In Support …” (Document No. 89) was filed. Plaintiff’s “Reply…” indicates that the
motion to compel has been narrowed to two (2) specific requests. (Document No. 89, p.11).
Plaintiff now seeks an Order compelling Defendant Griffin to:
(1) identify all records within his possession, custody or control,
which may contain documents responsive to B&T’s Document
Requests, including the records of CBR, SEB [non-party SE
Book Company, LLC], and their successors and affiliates;
(2) search for and produce all documents, including but not limited
to ESI, responsive to the Document Requests, using a set of
search terms and custodians to be supplied by B&T following
Griffin’s aforementioned disclosure of records
Id.
On February 26, 2014, Defendant Griffin filed a “Motion For Leave To File Surreply In
Opposition To New Arguments Raised In Plaintiff’s Reply In Support Of Motion To Compel
Against David Griffin” (Document No. 90). Plaintiff’s “Response In Opposition To Motion For
Leave To File A Surreply” (Document No. 91) was filed February 27, 2014.
2
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
any documents or other tangible things and the identity and
location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For
good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant
to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction.
See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507
(1947). However, a court may “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Whether to grant or deny a motion to compel is generally left within a district court’s
broad discretion. See, Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922,
929 (4th Cir. 1995) (denial of motions to compel reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion);
Erdmann v. Preferred Research Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988) (noting District Court’s
substantial discretion in resolving motions to compel); and LaRouche v. National Broadcasting
Co., 780 F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir. 1986) (same).
If the motion is granted – or if the disclosure or requested
discovery is provided after the motion was filed – the court must,
after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or
deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or
attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including
attorney’s fees.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). Likewise, if a motion is denied, the Court may award reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees, to the party opposing the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B).
3
III. DISCUSSION
Although there may very well be merit to Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel, under the
circumstances the undersigned will deny the motion, without prejudice to re-file.
First, it
appears to the undersigned that several of the items in contention when the motion was filed have
since been resolved. Second, the undersigned finds that what remains of Plaintiff’s pending
request is vague. In short, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s motion is alleging that all of Griffin’s
responses to Plaintiff’s forty-one (41) Document Requests are deficient, or only a few. See
(Document No. 83-5). Finally, the issue of what discovery remains to be produced also seems to
be clouded by Griffin’s stated intention to “produce all non-privileged, responsive documents” to
several of Plaintiff’s requests, but apparent failure, to date, to produce documents responding to
those requests. See (Document No. 82, p.8; Document No. 83-5).
In response to the pending motion, Griffin asserts that he “has produced the documents in
his possession, custody, or control and undertook reasonable efforts to search for responsive
documents.” (Document No. 84, pp.2, 6, 7). Griffin also explains why he has refused to respond
to certain requests. (Document No. 84, pp.4-5). After careful review of Plaintiff’s motion the
undersigned is inclined to agree with Griffin’s assessment that it is unclear what Plaintiff is
asking the Court to do. Defendant Griffin notes as follows:
B&T concedes that Griffin responded to thirty-one of the
document requests (Nos. 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14, 15-24, 26-32, 37-39)
by stating that he would produce non-privileged, responsive
documents. (Doc. No. 82 at 8). For some reason, B&T includes
those requests in its Motion, along with two other requests (Nos.
40 & 41) to which Griffin responded by stating that he “does not
possess” any responsive documents. Griffin is not certain what
B&T is asking the Court to do with respect to those document
requests. Based on the arguments presented by B&T and given
that Griffin stated he would produce or does not have documents
responsive to thirty-six of the requests, it appears that B&T is
4
seeking Court action on only five of the forty-one document
requests.
(Document No. 84, p.4).
In reply, Plaintiff for the first time articulates arguments for why Griffin should be
compelled to respond to specific discovery requests -- Document Request Nos. 3, 10, and 34-36.
(Document No. 89, p.2-4). Plaintiff also suggests that Griffin’s responses to Request Nos. 6, 10,
11, 13, 14, 25, 37, and 38 are deficient. (Document No. 89, p.5). As a result of the new
arguments in the “Reply…” (Document No. 89), Griffin now seeks “…Leave To File Surreply In
Opposition…” (Document No. 90).
Under these circumstances, the Court will direct Defendant Griffin to complete and/or
supplement his responses to Plaintiff’s Request For Production Of Documents “regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things
and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1).
The undersigned observes that Plaintiff’s initial responses and objections were
provided on or about November 13, 2013. (Document No. 83-5). Moreover, Griffin concedes
that for thirty-one of Plaintiff’s requests, he has stated that he will “produce non-privileged
responsive documents.” (Document No. 84, p.4). With discovery set to close by March 28,
2014, it is time for Defendant Griffin to complete his responses and/or confirm that appropriate
production is complete.
Once the parties have conferred regarding any allegedly nonprivileged and relevant
discovery requested by Plaintiff that is still outstanding, Plaintiff may, if necessary, file a
renewed motion to compel. Any renewed motion to compel should explicitly set forth the
5
specific Document Requests to which Plaintiff alleges Griffin’s responses are deficient, and
explain why Griffin’s responses and/or objections are inadequate.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on “Plaintiff Baker & Taylor’s Motion To
Compel Production From Defendant David Griffin” (Document No. 81) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Griffin shall complete and/or supplement
his responses to Plaintiff’s Document Requests, as directed herein, on or before March 17, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 10, 2014
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?