Cargill, Incorporated v. WDS, Inc. et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 69 Motion to Compel; denying 71 Motion to Expedite; denying 82 Motion for Protective Order; denying 99 Motion to Compel; denying 107 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 9/14/17. (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00848-FDW-DSC
CARGILL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
WDS, INC., JENNIFER MAIER, AND
BRIAN EWERT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel … ” (document
#69) and “Motion to Expedite …” (document #71), both filed July 24, 2017, “First Motion of
Plaintiff for Protective Order” (document #82) filed August 10, 2017, “Defendants’ WDS, Inc.
and Brian Ewert’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Order to Show Cause” (document #99)
filed August 22, 2017, and “Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Resolution of Their Motion for
Sanctions …” (document #107) filed September 8, 2017.
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ Motions, briefs, and exhibits, as well as the
record and authorities.
The present discovery dispute arises from the parties’ failure to comply with this Court’s
Order entered on July 11, 2017.1
During a telephone conference held that date, the Court heard from the parties on several
discovery matters including Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Ewerts improperly purged his

1

Defendant Maier is not involved in this discovery dispute.

email account and was therefore unable to produce certain responsive documents. Accordingly,
the Court ordered that any party who was unable to make full production must provide a detailed
explanation in a verified response.

Following the telephone conference, the Court entered the

following Order:
The parties’ respective objections to responding to discovery are overruled. Each
party shall fully and completely respond to the opposing party's discovery requests
within 30 days of this Order. If a party contends that it has made full production
previously it shall so state in a verified discovery response. If a party contends it is
unable to respond it shall provide a detailed explanation in a verified discovery
response. SO ORDERED.
Minute Order entered July 11, 2017 (emphasis added).
Rather than await Defendants’ response to the Order, Plaintiff filed its “Motion to Compel
… ” (document #69) and “Motion to Expedite …” (document #71) on July 24, 2017. Plaintiff
argues that those Motions were proper because in the interim, defense counsel informed them that
nothing more would be produced. This argument misses the point. The Court’s Order provided a
deadline for each party to make full production or formally explain why it was unable to do so.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s premature Motion to Compel will be denied.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order and Defendants’ Motion to Compel merely rehash
arguments the Court considered during the telephone conference. Accordingly, these Motions will
be denied.
The Court warns the parties that the July 11, 2017 Order remains in effect. Specifically,
their objections to providing full and complete discovery responses are overruled.
The Court will resolve “Plaintiff’s for Sanctions …” (document #106) when it has been
fully briefed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite hearing of that Motion will be denied.

FOR THESE REASONS, IT IS HEREBY ORERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel … ” (document #69) and “Motion to Expedite …”
(document #71), “First Motion of Plaintiff’s for Protective Order” (document #82), “Defendants’
WDS, Inc. and Brian Ewert’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Order to Show Cause”
(documents #99), and “Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Resolution of Their Motion for Sanctions
…” (document #107) are DENIED.
2. To the extent that any party has not produced responsive material during the pendency
of these Motions, that party shall make full and complete production within fifteen days of this
Order. To the extent that any party has failed to provide any other response required by the July
11, 2017 Order, that response shall be made within fifteen days of this Order.
3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties; and to the
Honorable Frank D. Whitney.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 14, 2017