Mowder v. Permanent General Assurance Corporation of Ohio et al
Filing
93
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/18/14. The Court denies plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline, grants the motion to quash of non-parties Daniel Kelly and American Family Insurance and denies the motion for sanctions filed by the non-parties. (Related Docs. 86 , 89 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
RON SATIJA, Trustee of the Bankruptcy :
Estate of David Mowder and Heather
:
Lynette Mowder,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE :
CORPORATION OF OHIO et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00082
ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 86 & 89]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this case with a trial scheduled for April 28, 2014, the Court has received two discoveryrelated motions.
First, Plaintiff Ron Satija moves this Court to extend the Court’s discovery deadline to allow
for the Estate to obtain documents from an investigative service hired by Defendants to interview
a potential witness in this case.1/ The Plaintiff says that Defendants agreed to supply those
documents.2/ Defendants oppose the motion and deny that they offered to produce the documents.3/
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The Court observes that the involvement of the
investigative service is clear from the face of the written statement the witness gave and that Plaintiff
received more than two months ago. No good cause exists to continue the discovery deadline.4/
Second, non-parties Daniel Kelly and American Family Insurance move to quash a subpoena
1/
Doc. 86.
2/
Id.
3/
Doc. 90.
4/
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court also observes that some of the documents would presumably be
covered by the attorney-work product protection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Case No. 1:13-CV-00082
Gwin, J.
served on Kelly by Plaintiff.5/ Kelly and American Family Insurance also move for sanctions.6/ They
say that Plaintiff has refused to withdraw the subpoena that he knows is improper.7/
The Court GRANTS the motion to quash. This Court has already denied Plaintiff’s motion
to extend discovery to allow Plaintiff to take Kelly’s deposition.8/ No basis exists to require Kelly
to comply with the subpoena and appear for a deposition when no indication exists that he has
personal knowledge of the subject matter and when the discovery period has ended.
The Court DENIES the motion for sanctions. Although Plaintiff’s apparent position on the
subpoena is curious to say the least, the Court does not find sanctions are an appropriate penalty here.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 18, 2014
5/
Doc. 89.
6/
Id.
Id. at 4.
7/
8/
Doc. 81.
-2-
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?