Mann v. LNKBox Group, Inc. et al
Filing
184
OPINION AND ORDER DENIED without prejudice in part and DENIED as moot in part as to ECF 139 Motion to Compel. If the remaining discovery dispute is not moot, particularly given the ongoing dispositive motion briefing, the parties are DIRECTED t o re-file their briefs in a cogent manner such that the Court can discern their arguments. Plaintiff must file her renewed motion, if any, within 21 DAYS of this Order. Such motion cannot exceed 20 pages. Defendant AEG must file its response, if any, within 14 DAYS of Plaintiff's renewed motion. Such response cannot exceed 20 pages. There will be no Reply unless ordered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 1/27/2025. (vb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BROOKE N. MANN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:22-cv-2553
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
v.
LNKBOX GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Defendant AEG Presents LLC to Respond to Discovery. (Mot., ECF No. 139.) Defendant AEG
Presents Boulder, LLC (“AEG”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Resp.,
ECF No. 158.) Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant AEG’s Opposition. (ECF No. 167.) This
matter is ripe for judicial review. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is DENIED without
prejudice in part and DENIED as moot in part.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this case on June 20, 2022, alleging personal injury claims. (ECF No.
1.) On June 5, 2024, the Court permitted a second extension of the discovery and dispositive
motion deadlines to October 26, 2024, and December 20, 2024, respectively. (ECF No. 121.)
On October 22, 2024, four days before the discovery deadline, Plaintiff filed its Motion to
Compel. (ECF No. 139.)
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits a party to file a motion for an order
compelling discovery if another party fails to respond to discovery requests, provided that the
motion to compel includes “a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort
to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Consistent with this, Local Rule 37.1
requires the parties to “exhaust[] among themselves all extrajudicial means for resolving their
differences” before filing an objection, motion, application, or request relating to discovery. S.D.
Ohio Civ. R. 37.1. Local Rule 37.1 also allows parties to first seek an informal telephone
conference with the Judge assigned to supervise discovery in the case, in lieu of immediately
filing a discovery motion. Id. The Court is satisfied that the parties met these prerequisites.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance is construed
very broadly for discovery purposes.” Doe v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:16-CV-171, 2018 WL
1373868, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018) (emphasis in original) (citing Lewis v. ACB Bus.
Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998)). Despite being construed broadly, the concept of
relevance is not unlimited. Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-1167, 2009 WL
799638, at *2 (S.D. Ohio March 24, 2009). Indeed, “[t]o satisfy the discoverability standard, the
information sought must have more than minimal relevance to the claims or defenses.” Doe,
2018 WL 1373868 at *2 (citations omitted). Furthermore, when information is “negligibly
relevant [or] minimally important in resolving the issues” this will not satisfy the standard. Id.
(citation omitted).
“District courts have broad discretion over docket control and the discovery process.”
Pittman v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 901 F.3d 619, 642 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “‘It is
well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id.
2
(quoting Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993)). “The proponent of a motion to
compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant.”
Gruenbaum v. Werner Enter., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 298, 302 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (citation omitted). If
the movant makes this showing, “then the burden shifts to the non-movant to show that to
produce the information would be unduly burdensome.” Prado v. Thomas, No. 3:16-CV-306,
2017 WL 5151377, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 19, 2017) (citing O’Malley v. NaphCare, Inc., 311
F.R.D. 461, 463 (S.D. Ohio 2015)); see also the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s
note to the 2015 amendment (stating that a party claiming undue burden or expense “ordinarily
has far better information—perhaps the only information—with respect to that part of the
determination” and that a “party claiming that a request is important to resolve the issues should
be able to explain the ways in which the underlying information bears on the issues as that party
understands them”).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant AEG to “produce complete and full
discovery responses and Documents [sic] to Plaintiff’s First and Second Set of Discovery and
Order [sic] the deposition of AEG witnesses Jason Miller and[] Michael Sampliner.” (Mot. at
PageID 3130.) Plaintiff includes a footnote in which she lists out the interrogatory responses she
claims are incomplete, but she does not identify how each interrogatory seeks relevant
information and why each of Defendant AEG’s responses are deficient. (Id. at PageID 3114.)
Instead, Plaintiff claims that Defendant AEG has failed to provide a variety of information. (Id.
at PageID 3121–3130.) The Court declines to attempt to decipher Plaintiff’s argument and
match it up with Defendant AEG’s responses to determine which, if any, requests are relevant
3
and if the corresponding responses are deficient. 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without
prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel discovery responses.
Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the depositions of Jason Miller and Michael
Sampliner, apparently out of concern that Defendant AEG will cancel the depositions
“immediately prior to commencement.” (Mot. at PageID 3130.) Although Plaintiff does not
provide adequate reasoning as to why the Court should order these depositions, Defendant AEG
notes that the depositions have been completed. (Resp. at PageID 5434.) Accordingly, the Court
DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s request.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant AEG to Respond to
Discovery (ECF No. 139) is DENIED without prejudice in part and DENIED as moot in
part. If the remaining discovery dispute is not moot, particularly given the ongoing dispositive
motion briefing, the parties are DIRECTED to re-file their briefs in a cogent manner such that
the Court can discern their arguments. Plaintiff must file her renewed motion, if any, within
TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this Order. Such motion cannot exceed 20 pages. Defendant AEG
must file its response, if any, within FOURTEEN DAYS of Plaintiff’s renewed motion. Such
response cannot exceed 20 pages. There will be no Reply unless ordered by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 27, 2025
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
The Court notes that Plaintiff did not attach or reference Defendant AEG’s most recent
supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests. (Resp. at PageID 5432.)
4
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?