The Bellas Company et al v. Pabst Brewing Company

Filing 59

ORDER. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 44, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal, if appropriate, following resolution of Plaintiffs' Objections, ECF No. 29 , and Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Case Schedule, ECF No. 30 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/11/2016. (pes)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
THE BELLAS COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Civil Action 2:15-cv-873
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King

PABST BREWING COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
On July 15, 2015, the Court conducted a preliminary pretrial
conference pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
Preliminary Pretrial Order, ECF No. 23.

Following that conference,

the Court issued an order bifurcating the issues in this case and
establishing certain case deadlines:
Plaintiffs propose, and this Court agrees, that the
issues should be bifurcated. Specifically, discovery and
proceedings will first be limited to the applicability of
O.R.C. § 1333.85(D). If the Court determines that the
statute applies, the Court will then establish a schedule
for resolving the issue of diminished value. . . .
Discovery related to the issue of the applicability of
O.R.C. § 1333.85(D) must be completed by September 1, 2015.
Motions for summary judgment on the issue of the
applicability of O.R.C. § 1333.65(D) must be filed no later
than September 15, 2015, unless otherwise ordered by the
Court.
Id. at 2-3.
On August 25, 2016, the Court again conferred with counsel for
the parties, addressing plaintiffs’ request to extend the September 1,

1

2015 discovery completion date relating to the applicability of O.R.C.
§ 1335.85(D) and to suspend the date by which motions for summary
judgment, addressing only the issue of the applicability of the
statute, be filed.
Order”).

Order, ECF No. 28, p. 1 (“the August 25, 2015

The Court extended the deadline for completing discovery

relevant to the applicability of the statue to September 11, 2015, but
declined to extend the September 15, 2015 deadline for filing motions
for summary judgment on that issue.

Id. at 1-2.

Thereafter, plaintiffs objected to the August 25, 2015 Order,
Plaintiffs’ Objections, ECF No. 29 (“Objections”), and moved to modify
the case schedule, seeking a 30-day extension of the deadlines for
completing discovery and filing motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Case Schedule, ECF No. 30 (“Motion to
Modify”).

In support of these requests to extend the case deadlines,

plaintiffs complain, inter alia, that defendant improperly redacted
over half of the documents it produced on September 4, 2015, based on
defendant’s purported belief that the redacted information was
irrelevant.
No. 35, p. 3.

See, e.g., ECF No. 29, pp. 3, 5; ECF No. 30, pp. 2-3; ECF
Plaintiffs also argue that the need to depose certain

key individuals who were not identified until shortly before the
discovery cut-off, inter alios, Rich Pascucci and Rosemary SarabiaMata, warrants extending the case schedule.
6; ECF No. 30, p. 3; ECF No. 35, pp. 1, 4-9.

See, e.g., ECF No. 29, p.
Plaintiffs go on to

argue that additional time for discovery is necessary because
defendant has refused to produce any documents that pre-date the

2

change in ownership.

See, e.g., ECF No. 29, pp. 3, 5; ECF No. 30, p.

2; ECF No. 35, pp. 3-4.

Defendant has opposed the Objections and

Motion to Modify, see ECF Nos. 31, 58, which are pending consideration
by the assigned District Judge.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 44
(“Motion to Compel”) was filed.

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling,

inter alia, the depositions of Mr. Pascucci and Ms. Sarabia-Mata; a
privilege log and production of documents redacted on a basis other
than privilege; and production of responsive documents, including,
inter alia, emails/documents that pre-date the change in ownership.
See generally id.

Stated differently, plaintiffs have filed a

separate motion seeking the discovery identified in plaintiffs’
pending Objections and Motion to Modify.

Resolution of the Motion to

Compel therefore implicates these pending motions.

Under these

circumstances, the Court concludes that resolution of the Objections
and Motion to Modify should precede resolution of the Motion to
Compel.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 44,
is DENIED without prejudice to renewal, if appropriate, following
resolution of Plaintiffs’ Objections, ECF No. 29, and Plaintiffs’
Motion to Modify Case Schedule, ECF No. 30.

January 11, 2016

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

3