Rieger v. General Dynamics

Filing 30

ORDER - Plaintiff is ORDERED to review the Courts March 10th Orders and attempt to resolve all matters extrajudicially with Defendants counsel. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, they may contact the Court to request a conference after March 24, 2014. A copy of this order was mailed to the Pro Se Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 3/13/2014. (gh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JOSEPH M. RIEGER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Case No.: 3:13-cv-402
Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff has contacted the Court’s staff numerous times in the past few days to
request informal discovery conferences. To date, the Court has held three informal discovery
conferences with the parties (on January 9, February 25, and March 7), in addition to the
preliminary pretrial conference on January 29, 2014.
During the call on March 7, the Court exhaustively reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to
Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production. The Court overruled the majority of
Plaintiff’s objections and ordered Plaintiff to comply with the requests. Counsel for Defendant,
Mr. Seidler, voluntarily narrowed the scope of several requests, which Plaintiff was then directed
to answer.
Plaintiff now requests an informal discovery conference to review the conference held on
March 7 and raise several new issues. Plaintiff’s telephone calls and voicemails to the Court
make clear that he is aware that the Court issued two Orders on March 10 stemming from the
March 7 call (docs. 28-29), neither of which he has received or reviewed. Nonetheless, Plaintiff
has now made several requests for an additional discovery conference.
Plaintiff appears to raise a new objection to Defendant’s request for production number
14, which seeks documents from other lawsuits in which Plaintiff has participated as a party or
witness. Plaintiff seems to object on the basis that this request is unduly burdensome. During

the call on March 7, Defendant agreed to narrow the scope of this request to encompass only
lawsuits and proceedings after January 1, 2005. The Court then directed Plaintiff to comply with
this request as modified. Plaintiff also wishes to discuss with the Court the procedure for sealing
the contents of one or more depositions, the impact of evidentiary rules, and the potential to enter
into a stipulation regarding the production of other documents. A number of these issues were
discussed during the March 7 call. Additionally, the Court discussed the need for a Protective
Order during the March 7 call.
The Court has afforded pro se Plaintiff considerable leeway in his conduct thus far in the
litigation. The Court has held three informal discovery conferences and provided Plaintiff the
opportunity to raise any and all concerns, of which Plaintiff has amply availed himself.
The Court is troubled by the potential for abuse of the informal discovery conference
process by requests not made in good faith, and the resulting misuse of the Court’s time and
resources. Local Rule 37.1 provides that parties may request an informal discovery conference
in lieu of filing a discovery motion only “[a]fter extrajudicial means for the resolution of
differences about discovery have been exhausted.” That has not occurred here.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to review the Court’s March 10th Orders and attempt to resolve
all matters extrajudicially with Defendant’s counsel.

If the parties are unable to reach a

resolution, they may contact the Court to request a conference after March 24, 2014.
The Clerk shall promptly mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 13, 2014

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-