Lockard Aircraft Sales Co., Inc. v. Dumont Aircraft Sales, LLC et al
Filing
89
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 79 Motion to Compel; granting 83 Motion for Protective Order (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LOCKARD AIRCRAFT SALES CO.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 16-CV-469-JED-FHM
DUMONT AIRCRAFT SALES, LLC, et
al.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery, [Dkt. 79], and Defendant’s Motion
for Protective Order, [Dkt. 83], are before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.
The matters have been fully briefed and are ripe for decision. Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling Defendants to produce their personal and business tax returns. Defendants
seek a protective order preventing Plaintiff from seeking or obtaining that information.
On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff served discovery requests seeking production of
Defendants’ personal and business tax returns. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have
waived any objection to production of the tax returns by their failure to object. [Dkt. 79, p.
2]. Defendants represent that they have objected to the request and set out the content
of their objection. [Dkt. 82, p. 3]. The court notes that Plaintiff failed to comply with the
requirement contained in LCvR 37.2: “The opening brief in support of a discovery
motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 through 37 shall include a verbatim recitation
of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection which is the subject of
the motion.” Instead of including a verbatim recitation of its discovery request and the
Defendants’ answer which contains an objection, Plaintiff attached copies of its
discovery requests as an exhibit to its opening brief. Had Plaintiff complied with LCvR
37.2, it would not have presented a factually erroneous assertion. The court finds that no
waiver occurred.
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel addressing the May 2017 discovery requests on
August 17, 2017, and withdrew that motion on September 10, 2018, [Dkt. 68], after briefing
was complete and a hearing on the matter was scheduled. The initial discovery deadline
in the case was September 28, 2017. [Dkt. 17]. That deadline has been extended five
times, [Dkt. 28, 51, 55, 59, 77], the current deadline passed on February 28, 2019. [Dkt.
77]. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on the date of the current discovery
deadline.
Plaintiff has offered no explanation for the delay in filing its motion to compel but
more importantly, except for stating its complaint contains a request for punitive damages,
Plaintiff has offered no argument addressing why production of the tax returns is necessary
to its case. The undersigned is unconvinced that tax returns would necessarily show the
net worth information generally relevant to punitive damages.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery, [Dkt. 79], is DENIED; Defendant’s
Motion for Protective Order, [Dkt. 83], is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2019.
2
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?