Jack v. Grose

Filing 68

ORDER granting in part 62 Motion to Compel: Documents responsive to Plaintiff's subpoena to the Interested Parties must be produced with an "Attorney's Eyes Only" designation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 12/13/2017. (ew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN JACK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action 2:16-cv-633
Judge Alegnon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson

SOUTH PARK VENTURES
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter came before the Court for a status conference on December 13, 2017,
regarding Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to Compel interested parties Jeff Harper, K&H Partners,
LLC, and Central Environmental Services, LLC to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s
subpoena, that were being withheld based on confidentiality concerns. (Doc. 62). In Jeff
Harper, K&H Partners, LLC, and Central Environmental Services, LLC’s (collectively, “the
Interested Parties”) Response in Opposition, counsel explained it had no objection to producing
the responsive documents at issue, but felt that doing so would violate a confidentiality
agreement the Interested Parties may have signed with either Defendant Dean Grose or one of
his companies, Comtech Industries.

(Doc. 66).

During the conference, however, defense

counsel represented that no such written confidentiality agreement existed.
In light of this representation, the Interested Parties stated that they did not believe the
remaining responsive documents were confidential, and were willing to produce the documents
to Plaintiffs. Defendants, on the other hand, argued during the conference and in their Response
in Opposition (Doc. 67), that the documents at issue contain confidential business records.

In light of these competing viewpoints, and consistent with discussions during the
conference, the Interested Parties are DIRECTED to produce the responsive documents at issue
with the designation of “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” If, after the production of documents, Plaintiffs
would like to challenge the designation of certain documents, they are DIRECTED to meet and
confer with Defendants in an effort to resolve the issue extrajudicially. If no resolution can be
reached, Plaintiffs may file a notice on the docket stating as much, and submit the documents at
issue to the undersigned via email ([e-mail]) for in camera review.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 63) is GRANTED in part, in that all
documents responsive to Plaintiff’s subpoena to the Interested Parties must be produced, albeit
with an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 13, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2