Swartz et al v. DiCarlo

Filing 117

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Motion for Protective Order (doc. no 110) is DENIED as moot in light of the parties' understanding. Other miscellaneous matters pertaining to discovery were placed on the record. The undersigned will retain jurisdiction over the discovery disputes discussed in the telephone conference, should any future disputes arise concerning those issues, re 112 . Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli on 5/23/2014. (M,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES R. SWARTZ, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARK A. DiCARLO,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12CV3112

JUDGE CHRISTOPHER BOYKO
(Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli)

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

VECCHIARELLI, Mag. J.
The court held a telephone conference today on the discovery disputes
between the parties.
Concerning the Motion for Protective Order (doc. 110), plaintiffs volunteered
that approximately 83 of the Requests for Admissions propounded to Vilma and
James Swartz were appropriate, and would be answered. There were objections to
the remainder of the approximately 200 Requests, on various grounds. Defendant
Di Carlo agreed to accept responses to the approximately 83 uncontested Requests
for Admissions, and to withdraw the remainder. Plaintiffs will provide their
answers to Di Carlo on or before Friday, June 6, 2014.
Plaintiffs will ascertain whether they received Requests for Admissions for
Toni Marie, which Di Carlo sent to counsel in early April. If they have not been
received, Di Carlo will re-send.

The Motion for Protective Order (doc. 110) is thus DENIED as moot in light
of the parties’ understanding.
As to the discovery dispute concerning Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents, brought to the court’s attention on May 13,
2014, the court ruled that subparts of interrogatories that relate to a single common
theme (as exemplified in the subparts detailing the word “identify”) are not counted
as separate interrogatories. Definitions of words in the preamble to written
discovery requests are appropriate. In addition, interrogatories that refer to an
earlier interrogatory are not improper. However, plaintiffs are limited to twentyfive (25) interrogatories, as specified in Civil Rule 33. Plaintiffs had propounded
thirty-two interrogatories, thus the court ordered that seven (7) be withdrawn. The
plaintiffs shall notify defendant by the end of business on Tuesday, May 27, 2014,
which seven interrogatories are being withdrawn. Defendant will submit his
responses within fourteen (14) days of that. Di Carlo represented that he would
sign his discovery responses.
Other miscellaneous matters pertaining to discovery were placed on the
record. The court urged the parties to confer by telephone promptly concerning any
future objections to minimize delay in moving the discovery process forward. The

2

undersigned will retain jurisdiction over the discovery disputes discussed in the
telephone conference, should any future disputes arise concerning those issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 23, 2014

/s/ Nancy A. Vecchiarelli
Nancy A. Vecchiarelli
United States Magistrate Judge

3