Marx Industries, Inc. v. Chestnut Ridge Foam, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production. Defendant shall make its appropriate representative(s) available for a deposition on or before 1/20/12. Plaintiff may file a supplement to its response to "Defendant's Motion To Dismiss" 3 on or before 1/31/12. Defendant may file a reply to any such supplement within 10 days of its filing. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 1/3/12. (smj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-139-RLV-DCK
MARX INDUSTRIES, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHESTNUT RIDGE FOAM, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion To Compel Production
And To The Extent Necessary Clarify Order Granting Jurisdictional Discovery” (Document No. 17).
This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
On December 8, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion For Limited Discovery In Order
To Respond To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction” (Document No. 8), with
modification. (Document No. 12). Specifically, the undersigned observed that Plaintiff had
“suggest[ed] that the deposition of one (1) appropriately informed corporate designee prepared to
discuss jurisdictional facts and materials may be adequate.” Id. (citing (Document No. 11)). Thus
the Court allowed Plaintiff to conduct a five (5) hour deposition of one or more appropriate
representatives of Defendant, on the topics identified by Plaintiff in Document No. 11-1, and
narrowed to the time period from January 1, 2007 through the present. Id.
The undersigned finds the previous Order to be sufficiently clear. It does not require
Defendant to provide any written responses or documents; rather, it requires Defendant to provide
“one or more persons who are adequately prepared to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, as

narrowed in Document No. 11-1.” Id. Of course, Defendant is welcome to provide written
responses and documents to the extent it expedites this limited discovery and reduces the
inconvenience to all concerned, but the Court has not required such production. Moreover, the
previous Order deliberately allowed Defendant to determine the location of the proposed deposition.
Id. The Court will respectfully decline to reverse itself and order the deposition to be held in
Hickory, North Carolina as Plaintiff now requests. (Document No. 17).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Compel Production And To
The Extent Necessary Clarify Order Granting Jurisdictional Discovery” (Document No. 17) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall make its appropriate representative(s)
available for a deposition at a time agreeable to both parties, on or before January 20, 2012, and
at a location to be determined by Defendant. Defendant’s representative(s) shall be fully prepared
to address and respond to the information requested by Plaintiff in Document No. 11-1, relevant to
the time period of January 1, 2007 through the present.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a supplement to its response to
“Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss...” (Document No. 3) on or before January 31, 2012, and
Defendant may file a reply to any such supplement within ten (10) days of its filing.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 3, 2012

2