Agrawal v. Montemagno et al

Filing 86

ORDER that plaintiff's request for an extension of time of (30) days to attempt to resolve with defendants the pending 51 MOTION for Sanctions for Failure to Provide Discovery. The parties are Ordered to advise the Court by 5/10/2013 whether the motion will be withdrawn or requires a ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/10/2013. (art)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DHARMAP. AGRAWAL,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:1 0-cv-766
Beckwith, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.
CARLO MONTEMAGNO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the status report ofthe parties (attached hereto) on
plaintiffs pending motion for sanctions based on defendants' alleged failure to provide complete
discovery (Doc. 51). Plaintiff has requested an extension of time of 30 days to attempt to resolve the
matter with defendants. The request is granted and the parties are ordered to advise the Court by
May 10,2013 whether the motion will be withdrawn or requires a ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

---~.4:-+»..Lloa /L~3!C:...-_
4

~L~

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge

Fw: Court's order of 3/1/13, Agrawal v. Montemagno, 1:10-cv-766
OHSDdb_Litkovitz_Ch
Sent by: Arthur Hill
From:
To:
Sent by:

to: Karen Litkovitz, Erica Faaborg

04/02/2013 07:59AM

OHSDdb_Litkovitz_Ch/OHSD/06/USCOURTS
Karen Litkovitz/OHSD/06/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Erica
Faaborg/OHSD/06/USCOURTS@USCOURTS,
Arthur Hiii/OHSD/06/USCOURTS
OHSDdb_Litkovitz_Ch

Fw: Court's order of 3/1/13, Agrawal v. Montemagno, 1:10-cv-766

-----Forwarded by Arthur Hiii/OHSD/06/USCOURTS on 04/02/2013 07:59AM----From:
To:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:

Philip Judy <[e-mail]>
"litkovitz_chambers@ohsd. uscourts.gov" <litkovitz_chambers@ohsd. uscourts .gov>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, 'rgutzwiller' <[e-mail]>, "Drew C.
Piersall" <[e-mail]>
04/01/2013 04:16PM
RE: Court's order of 3/1/13, Agrawal v. Montemagno, 1:10-cv-766

Dear Magistrate Judge Litkovitz:
Mr. Gutzwiller's email below, in part, accurately reflects our understanding of his position regarding the
motion for sanctions. As it is Plaintiff's Motion, we cannot dictate how he should proceed with the
matter.
I would add that the 1000 pages to which he refers were produced on March 19, exactly two weeks
after Plaintiffs counsel identified the 23 or 24 among 270 files that he wanted, which files had to be
manually located (some of which were stored and located off site) and copied, and then sent to defense
counsel and reviewed prior to sending them to plaintiff. Thus, there was no delay in responding to
Plaintiffs request.
In the Court's order of March 1, 2013 (Doc. 62), the Court extended the discovery deadline to today for
the sole purpose completing the production of documents that came to light during a February 25
deposition, which the Defendants produced almost 2 weeks before the deadline. Although it is not
clear from Plaintiffs counsel's email exactly what it is he wishes to have extended 30 days, Defendants
do not believe extending the discovery deadline again would be beneficial to this case.
As for the status of matters raised in the motion itself, Defendants have remained in compliance with
every deadline and Order in place since the Court's initial order on the matter dated October 30, 2012
(Doc. 54), five months ago. In addition, Defendants are unaware of any outstanding request from

Plaintiff with which Defendants not yet complied. As such, we believe all matters addressed in the
original motion have been resolved, some of them long ago. Thus, to answer the question raised in the
Court's March 1, 2013 Order, we believe the motion should be withdrawn or denied.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Phil Judy

Philip L. Judy
Assistant Attorney General - Employment Law Section
Office of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
Office number: 614-644-7257
Fax number: 614-752-4677
[e-mail]
Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone.

From: rgutzwiller [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:08 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Philip Judy; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Court's order of 3/1/13, Agrawal v. Montemagno, 1:10-cv-766
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz:
This message is in response to the Court's order of 3-1-13 asking whether the plaintiffs motion for
sanctions will be withdrawn or require a ruling. At present plaintiffs counsel has not had the opportunity to
review the some 1,000 pages of very complex sponsored Research Records sent electronically a few
days ago. We simply have not had the time to determine whether the production was responsive to
plaintiffs request. Counsel have discussed but not resolved attorney's fee issues relating to the motion.
Plaintiff has, however, tendered a settlement offer to the defense, but has not received a response nor a
counteroffer. The offer was forwarded March 8. It would seem that it would be premature to take one or
the other fork in the road at this moment; perhaps an additional 30 days would resolve the issue.
Yours Very Truly,
Robert Gutzwiller
Clodfelter & Gutzwiller
414 Walnut Street, Suite 505
Cincinnati, OH
gutzwiller1 @aol.com