Wick v. Redmond et al
ORDER denying 31 Objection to Subpoena and Motion to Quash; granting 28 Motion to Compel. Within 15 days of this Memorandum and Order, plfs shall make complete supplemental responses to dfts' 1st Interrogs and Req/P rod/Dcmts to plf Suzanne Wick and dfts' 1st Interrogs and Req/Prod/Dcmts to plf Lisa Mangiardi, including production of the witness statements identified and/or played at the mediation. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 8/27/2013. (cbb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-00052-RLV-DSC
SUZANNE WICK AND LISA
PHILLIP H. REDMOND, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion to Compel” (document
#28) filed June 17, 2013, Defendants’ “Objection to Subpoena and Motion to Quash” (document
#31) filed July 9, 2013, and the parties’ associated briefs and exhibits. See documents ##28, 30,
31, 32, 39, 41 and 42.1
This Motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and are now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Defendants ask that the Court compel Plaintiffs to supplement their responses to
“Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff
Suzanne Wick” and “Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents to Plaintiff Lisa Mangiardi.” Specifically, Defendants seek production of witness
statements including recorded statements that were played at the February 26, 2013 mediated
settlement conference. In response, Plaintiffs argue that those statements are “are protected by
Defendants initially failed to docket their “Memorandum of Law in Support of … Motion to Compel” (document
#41). Upon realizing the error, the Court directed Defendants to docket their brief and allowed Plaintiffs an
opportunity to file an additional response.
work-product and attorney client privilege since the mediation videos were produced only for a
confidential mediation.” Document #30 at 2.
The Court has carefully examined the record, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable
authorities. Plaintiffs rely on North Carolina law that protects statements made in the course of
See N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-38.1(l).
These provisions do not shield witness
statements disclosed to the opposing party and counsel during mediation from being produced in
discovery. Id. For this and the other reasons cited in Defendants’ briefs, their Motion will be
In their Motion to Quash, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Iredell County
seeking production of personnel records should be quashed because the files are confidential and
privileged. Plaintiffs correctly respond that there is a Consent Protective Order (document #15)
For this and the other reasons cited in Plaintiffs’ briefs, Defendants’ Motion will be
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
Defendants’ “Objection to Subpoena and Motion to Quash” (document #31) is
2. “Defendants’ Motion to Compel” (document #28) is GRANTED.
(15) days of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiffs shall make complete supplemental
responses to “Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents
to Plaintiff Suzanne Wick” and “Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa Mangiardi,” including production of the witness
statements identified and/or played at the mediation.
3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties, including
but not limited to moving counsel; and to the Honorable Richard L. Voorhees.
Signed: August 27, 2013
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?