Southcrest, L.L.C. v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. et al
Filing
197
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part and denying in part 87 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 88 Motion to Compel (jcm, Dpty Clk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SOUTHCREST, L.L.C.,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BOVIS LEND LEASE, INC.;
GOULD TURNER GROUP, P.C.;
and CARLISLE SYNTEC., INC.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 10-CV-362-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Gould Turner Group, P.C.’s (“Gould”) Motion to Compel Regarding
SouthCrest, LLC’s Responses to Gould Turner Group, P.C.’s First Request for
Production of Documents [Dkt. 87] and Defendant Gould Turner Group, P.C.’s Motion
to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Its First Requests for Admission and
Interrogatories [Dkt. 88] are before the Court for decision. The motions have been
fully briefed and a hearing was held on May 17, 2011.
Through the coordinated interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests
for production of documents which are the basis for these motions, Gould sought a
detailed explanation of all of Plaintiff’s contentions against Gould and a specific
identification, contention by contention or category by category, of all documents and
records that Plaintiff would rely upon to support Plaintiff’s contentions. (See e.g.
Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production 6).
Plaintiff responds that it has produced all of the documents and records related
to the construction projects at issue, including all of the reports from the companies
hired to determine the causes of the problems with the buildings and suggested
solutions and all of the records of the companies performing the reconstruction on the
buildings.
In many instances, in responding to Gould’s discovery Plaintiff has
identified specific documents or records but Plaintiff also stated that a specific list of
all documents and records that support particular contentions will be provided by
Plaintiff’s experts in their reports.1
The Court has read and re-read Gould’s motions and Plaintiff’s discovery
responses in light of Gould’s arguments. The Court rejects Gould’s contention that
it has been denied the facts needed to present its defense. All of the facts are
available to Gould. The Court is not persuaded by Gould’s argument that Plaintiff
should be required at this stage of the case to specifically identify everything Plaintiff
contends Gould did wrong and to identify the specific document or record Plaintiff will
rely on to prove each allegation.2 At this stage Gould is not entitled to a step by step,
document by document road map of Plaintiff’s case.
The Court finds that, with the exceptions noted herein, Plaintiff’s responses
comply with its obligations under the rules and are sufficient for the needs of this case.
The areas where Plaintiff is required to provide additional responses are set out
below. All other requests for relief are denied.
Requests for Admission
1
This case is not similar to Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, 2007 WL 649332 (N.D. Okla.) cited by
Gould. In Tyson the Plaintiff opted to produce documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) instead of providing
a narrative answer to interrogatories. In this case SouthCrest has not invoked Rule 33(d) in answer to
interrogatories.
2
The Court notes that the First Amended Complaint filed May 23, 2011, [Dkt. 190], provides
significant detail about the exact nature of the alleged deficiencies.
2
Plaintiff shall respond to Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 with regard to the original
hospital.
Interrogatories
No. 2:
Plaintiff shall respond concerning CHS/Community Health
Systems, Inc. and Community Health Systems, Inc.;
No. 10:
The supplemental response is not responsive to the question.
Plaintiff shall respond to the question asked;
No. 13:
Plaintiff waived objection to the number of interrogatories. Plaintiff
shall provide a general description of any work, repair,
maintenance or preventive maintenance;
No. 20:
Plaintiff waived objection to the number of interrogatories. Plaintiff
shall supplement its original response if there is additional
responsive information.
Requests for Production
No. 10:
Plaintiff shall supplement, if necessary, based upon the response
ordered regarding Interrogatory No. 10;
No. 13:
Plaintiff shall supplement, if necessary, based upon the response
ordered regarding Interrogatory No. 13;
No. 57:
Plaintiff agreed at the hearing to produce.
Other Issues Discussed at the Hearing
Subject to LCvR 26.4, Plaintiff will provide a privilege log of any documents
being withheld based on a claim of privilege or work product protection;
Plaintiff is not required to index the 58 boxes in storage;
Plaintiff is not required to bates-stamp the photographs from M.J. Harris;
Plaintiff will regularly supplement production of photographs of ongoing
reconstruction.
3
Conclusion
Defendant Gould Turner Group, P.C.’s (“Gould”) Motion to Compel Regarding
SouthCrest, LLC’s Responses to Gould Turner Group, P.C.’s First Request for
Production of Documents [Dkt. 87] and Defendant Gould Turner Group, P.C.’s Motion
to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Its First Requests for Admission and
Interrogatories [Dkt. 88] are Granted in Part and Denied in Part as set forth herein.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2011.
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?