McCormick et al v. Dresdale et al

Filing 121

ORDER denying in part 91 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs and Defendants-In-Counterclaim To Provide More Responsive Responses To First Request For Production Of Documents filed by Richard C. Dresdale, Marcella E. Dresdale. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty, District of NH on 8/5/11. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

William R. McCormick, III, et al.
v.

Civil No. 09-cv-474-PB

Marcella E. Dresdale, et al.

O R D E R
On August 3, 2011, a hearing was held on the motion to
compel (doc. no. 91) filed by Marcella E. Dresdale and Richard
C. Dresdale (collectively “the Dresdales”).

In an order dated

May 25, 2011, this court deferred ruling on the motion to compel
and ordered the parties to engage in a further “meet and confer”
to resolve the issues raised therein.

To the extent the parties

were unable to resolve their remaining disputes, the court
ordered the parties to file a status report.

The parties filed

a status report (doc. no. 114) on June 29, 2011.

That status

report indicated that the parties had made significant progress
but that certain discreet disputes remained.
At the August 3 hearing, the parties clarified that there
were only two issues still in dispute.
summarized as follows:

Those two issues can be

(1) The Dresdales maintain that William R. McCormick, III,
Carol A. McCormick, and William R. McCormick, II (collectively
“the McCormicks”) are required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) to
link each of the hundreds of documents that the McCormicks have
already produced to one or more of the 148 separately numbered
requests they, the Dresdales, have proposed in their First
Request for Production of Documents (“First RPOD”).
(2) The Dresdales also maintain that the McCormicks must
provide to them any written communications between the
McCormicks and their current counsel that are responsive to the
First RPOD and are not privileged.

By way of example, the

Dresdales offer the following hypothetical communication: an
email from Attorney Kilpatrick to any one of the McCormicks that
may have been “cc’d” to a non-client.
The court issued its ruling with respect to both of these
remaining disputes orally from the bench.
incorporates by reference those rulings.

This written order
The court briefly

summarizes its rulings below.
Dispute #1
With respect to dispute #1, the court denies the Dresdales’
motion to compel.

The McCormicks produced more than one

thousand pages of documents prior to the Dresdales’ propounding

2

the First RPOD.

Notably, the McCormicks placed bates-stamped

numbers on all of the documents they had produced.

The

McCormicks have objected to the First RPOD as overly burdensome.
However, and without waiving that objection, the McCormicks
provided answers to the individual requests.

In many instances,

the McCormicks responded by stating that no other responsive
documents existed, other than those that had already been
provided.

Where the McCormicks could readily identify which

specific documents in the hundreds of documents already produced
were responsive to the specific requests, the McCormicks did so
by indicating the bates numbers of the relevant documents.
In short, the court finds that the burden on the McCormicks
of demarcating precisely which documents answer which of the 148
requests for the production of documents is too great in light
of the minimal benefit to the Dresdales of having this
information.

To the extent the Dresdales have any questions

about any set of documents, or any specific document, produced
by the McCormicks, their counsel can telephone the McCormicks’
counsel to obtain the necessary information.

3

Dispute #2
With respect to dispute #2, and pursuant to the McCormicks’
request, the court is holding any ruling in abeyance until
August 5, 2011, at 5 p.m., by which time counsel for the
McCormicks will file a very brief status report informing the
court as to the McCormicks’ position with respect to the
Dresdales’ request.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
August 5, 2011
cc:

Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Esq.
J. Scott Kilpatrick, Esq.
Stephen J. Reid, Jr., Esq.
Steven M. Richard, Esq.
Michael Burch, Esq.

4