The Church of Christ at Azalea Drive v. Forest River Inc et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on June 6, 2013.(kspa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
AT AZALEA DRIVE,
on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FOREST RIVER, INC., and
)
STARCRAFT BUS, a Division of
)
Forest River, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:11-cv-3371-PMD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a motion for clarification, reconsideration, and relief
filed by Defendants Forest River, Inc., and Starcraft Bus (collectively “Defendants”) on June 3,
2013 (“Motion”). Defendants seek clarification of the scope of the Court’s Order dated May 23,
2013 (“May 23 Order”), which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel.
Aside from the following clarification, Defendants’ Motion is denied.1
Plaintiff requested that the Court compel Defendants to produce documents responsive to
Request for Production No. 15. Accordingly, the Court quoted verbatim Request No. 15, ordering
Defendants to “produce ‘[a]ll owner reports, complaints, communications, consumer letters,
customer complaints, fleet complaints, electronic dealer service reports, and service investigation
reports, insurance reports and claims, engineering reports, vehicle owner questionnaires, surveys,
memoranda, and emails or other communications’ from 2002 to the present relating to all Starcraft
buses purchased by current South Carolina residents.” May 23 Order 5, dkt. 44. Thus, the Court’s

1

Defendants’ request for a hearing also is denied.

1

May 23 Order compelled production of only those documents listed in the request and dating from
2002 to the present for all Starcraft buses purchased by current South Carolina residents—not the
production of every document in the files for each bus sold into South Carolina. As the Court did
not order production of all files, the Court need not address Defendants’ requests for
reconsideration regarding all files and for additional time. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. 15, dkt. 45-1
(“To the extent the Court intended to require the production of all files, Forest River seeks
reconsideration that would limit production to a sampling . . . . Should the Court require the
production of all of the files . . . , Forest River seeks at least sixty (60) days in which to complete
this process . . . .).
Defendants also request reconsideration of the Court’s Order requiring production of
documents relating to models other than the XLT-model bus. “An interlocutory order is subject to
reconsideration at any time prior to the entry of a final judgment.” Fayetteville Investors v.
Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “[m]otions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders are not subject to the strict standards applicable to motions
for reconsideration of a final judgment.” Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505,
514 (4th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, district courts in the Fourth Circuit look to those standards for
guidance. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Double Down Entm’t, LLC, C/A No. 0:11-cv-02438, 2012
WL 6210334, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2012). Thus, “the following are appropriate reasons for
granting a Rule 54(b) motion: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on
account of new evidence; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. A
motion for reconsideration, however, “is not an opportunity to rehash issues already ruled upon
because a litigant is displeased with the result.” Id.
During the pre-certification stage of discovery, the question before the Court is “whether
the information and documents sought by the plaintiff can be rightly characterized as necessary to
2

assist the Court in its decision whether or not to certify the class”—that is, whether they shed light
on the class certification Rule 23 requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation. Griffin v. Harley Davidson Credit Corp., C.A. No. 8:08-cv-466-HFFBHH, 2010 WL 233764, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 14, 2010). In its May 23 Order, the Court explained
that because the parties clearly disagree about whether or not the scope of this putative class action
should include both large and small models of Starcraft buses, the Court likely will be asked to
determine whether South Carolina purchasers of non-XLT model buses should be included within
the class or a subclass. The Court then concluded that Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct
discovery on all models of Starcraft buses that were purchased by current South Carolina residents
because “discovery is likely warranted where it will resolve factual issues necessary for the
determination of whether the action may be maintained as a class action, such as whether a class or
set of subclasses exist[s].” Artis v. Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 351 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The Court
is not convinced by Defendants’ arguments that permitting such discovery is clear error that will
result in manifest injustice. Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider this issue.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion be DENIED.

If

Defendants have not already complied with the May 23 Order, they will have seven (7) days from
the date of this order to produce the compelled documents.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 6, 2013
Charleston, SC

3