Collins v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Filing
54
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion to Compel. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Daneta Wollmann on 9/30/16. (Wollmann, Daneta)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
JEFF COLLINS,
5:15-CV-05047-JLV
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE
TRAVELERS COMPANIES; AND THE
TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This is a bad faith diversity action brought by Plaintiff, Jeff Collins,
against Defendants, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and the
Traveler’s Companies, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “St.
Paul/Travelers”). (Doc. 1). Pending before the court is a motion filed by Collins
to compel St. Paul/Travelers to provide certain discovery. (Doc. 38). The
presiding district judge, the Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, referred
this motion to this magistrate judge for a decision. (Doc. 43).
FACTS
The facts as pertinent to the pending motion are as follows. Collins
sustained a work related injury and underwent multiple back surgeries. St.
Paul/Travelers paid for these surgeries, along with total disability benefits. St.
Paul/Travelers terminated Collins’ disability benefits after his eighth back
1
surgery. Approximately 8½ months later, Collins’ physician prescribed another
surgical procedure. St. Paul/Travelers required Collins to undergo a medical
evaluation by Nolan Segal, M.D. Initially, St. Paul/Travelers denied coverage
for the recommended surgery. Collins underwent the surgical procedure which
was paid for by his own health insurer. Thereafter, St. Paul/Travelers
reimbursed Collins’ health insurer. Collins and St. Paul/Travelers negotiated a
settlement of his worker’s compensation claim.
Collins thereafter initiated this civil action against St. Paul/Travelers,
alleging bad faith denial of his medical care (surgery), denial of temporary total
disability benefits, and conditioning a term of the settlement upon Collins
releasing a bad faith claim. St. Paul/Travelers denies that it acted in bad faith
and asserts the affirmative defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
DISCUSSION
I.
Whether Plaintiff Has “Met and Conferred” With Defendant
“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for
an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
St. Paul/Travelers argues that Collins failed to meet his burden to meet
and confer because the January 6, 2016, meeting was held prior to Collins
2
filing his amended complaint and while St.Paul/Travelers was supplementing
its discovery responses. (Doc. 44, p. 4).
The moving party’s motion may contain the equivalent of this
certification in which the attorney “confirms that it has attempted in good faith
to resolve this discovery dispute [with opposing counsel]” prior to filing the
motion. See Highmark, Inc. v. Northwest Pipe Co., No. CIV 10-5089-JLV, 2012
WL 997007, *4 (D.S.D. Mar. 23, 2012).
“The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to force litigants to
attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the disputed issues to prevent the
unnecessary waste of time and effort on any given motion.” Robinson v.
Napolitano, No. CIV. 08-4084, 2009 WL 1586959, *3 (D.S.D. June 4 2009)
(internal quotations omitted) (citing Alexander v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 197, 199 (D.D.C. 1999)).
The parties’ briefing and exhibits set forth the actions taken by the
parties which Collins’ believes met the meet and confer requirements. The
court will accept this description as equivalent to the required certification and
finds that Collins has satisfied its duty to confer in good faith with counsel for
St.Paul/Travelers to try to work out these differences before filing the instant
motion. Therefore, the court will consider the motion on its merits.
II.
Whether the Discovery Must be Provided
Scope of discovery
The scope of discovery for civil cases is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) which provides as follows:
3
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the
scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to
relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,
and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information
within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
“A party seeking discovery is merely required to make a threshold
showing of relevance, which is more relaxed than the showing required for
relevance in the context of admissibility.” Klynsma v. Hydradyne, LLC, No.
CIV. 13-5016-JLV, 2015 WL 5773703, *16 (D.S.D. Sept. 30, 2015) (citing
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978)). The party
resisting discovery must show specifically how each request is irrelevant or
unduly burdensome. Klynsma, 2015 WL 5773703 at *16 (citing St Paul
Reinsurance Co., 198 F.R.D. at 512).
The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is extremely broad. See 8
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2007, 3637 (1970)(hereinafter “Wright & Miller”). The reason for the broad scope of
discovery is that "[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both
parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel
the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession." 8 Wright &
Miller, ' 2007, 39 (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08, 67 S. Ct.
4
385, 392, 91 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1947)). The Federal Rules distinguish between
discoverability and admissibility of evidence. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), 32, and
33(a)(2) & (c). Therefore, the rules of evidence assume the task of keeping out
incompetent, unreliable, or prejudicial evidence at trial. These considerations
are not inherent barriers to discovery, however.
“Relevancy is to be broadly construed for discovery issues and is not
limited to the precise issues set out in the pleadings. Relevancy ...
encompass[es] ‘any matter that could bear on, or that reasonably could lead to
other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.’”
E.E.O.C. v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society, 2007 WL 1217919 at *1 (D.
Neb. March 15, 2007) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S.
340, 351 (1978)). The party seeking discovery must make a “threshold showing
of relevance before production of information, which does not reasonably bear
on the issues in the case, is required.” Id. (citing Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,
981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1993)). “Mere speculation that information might
be useful will not suffice; litigants seeking to compel discovery must describe
with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and
its importance to their case.” Id. (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986,
994 (8th Cir. 1972).
Discoverable information itself need not be admissible at trial; rather,
the defining question is whether it is within the scope of discovery. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, the court may limit the frequency and extent of
discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2); see also Roberts v. Shawnee Mission
5
Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 361 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The rule vests the district court
with discretion to limit discovery if it determines, inter alia, the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”); Continental
Illinois Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 684-85 (D.
Kan. 1991) (“All discovery requests are a burden on the party who must
respond thereto. Unless the task of producing or answering is unusual, undue
or extraordinary, the general rule requires the entity answering or producing
the documents to bear that burden.”).
A.
Whether the court should overrule all of defendant’s
boilerplate “General Objections.”
In both St. Paul/Traveler’s Interrogatory Answers and Responses to
Request for Production of Documents, Defendants set forth a plethora of
“General Objections” which are then specifically incorporated into each answer
or response. (Doc. 39-3, p. 1-2; Doc. 39-4, p. 1-2). The stated grounds for the
14 general objections used in both the Answers and Responses include the
following: overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague, ambiguous,
irrelevant, undefined terms, attorney-client or work product privileges, seeks
information from non-parties, seeks information outside the possession and
control of defendant, not causally related to the handling of plaintiff’s claim,
trade secrets, 3rd party plaintiffs are not entitled to relief, and its reservation of
right to supplement or modify its answers or responses.
In defense of these general objections, St. Paul/Travelers argues that it
was merely preserving its objections. Additionally, it argues that these
objection were made, in part, to point out the expansive scope of discovery
6
sought by Collins. Neither of these reasons form the basis to either preserve
any valid objection or withhold information. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require a party objecting to discovery to show specifically how each
discovery request is irrelevant or otherwise not subject to discovery. Kooima v.
Zacklift Intern, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 444, 446 (D.S.D. 2002). The court overrules
St. Paul/Travelers’ general objections.
B.
Interrogatories
1.
Interrogatory 2- knowledge each person possesses.
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. Accordingly, Collins’
motion to compel as it relates to Interrogatory 2 is denied as moot. (Doc. 46,
p. 8).
2.
Interrogatory 1 and 2- address and telephone number
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. Accordingly, Collins’
motion to compel as it relates to Interrogatory 1 & 2 are denied as moot. (Doc.
46, p. 9).
3.
General objections based on Hein v. Acuity and
DeKniffer v. General Casualty Co.
A part of the general objections, St. Paul/Travelers lodge nonspecific
objections based on Hein v. Acuity, 731 N.W.2d 231 (S.D. 2007) and DeKnikker
v. General Cas. Co., 2008 WL 1848144 (D.S.D. April 23, 2008). Collins argues
that DeKnikker was distinguished and effectively overruled by Kirschenmann v.
Auto-Owners, 280 F.R.D. 474 (D.S.D. 2012) and Hein’s application is irrelevant
7
to Collins’ discovery requests. The court overrules St. Paul/Traveler’s general
objection based on the same rationale set forth in the previous discussion
regarding boilerplate objections. St. Paul/Traveler’s objection fails to identify a
particular discovery request and they fail to identify a specific privilege. The
court overrules St. Paul/Travelers’ objections based on Hein and DeKnikker,
because it fails to object with specify how each discovery request is irrelevant
or otherwise not subject to discovery.
4.
Interrogatories 3, 4, 13, and 14
Interrogatory 3 & 4: Identity of St. Paul/Traveler’s IT
person; persons most familiar with how defendants keep
and maintain records about medical providers and who
examine injured workers
Both of these Interrogatories are resisted on the same basis. Accordingly,
the Court will address them together.
Collins’ Interrogatory 3 seeks the identity of the person most familiar
with St. Paul/Traveler’s electronic claims systems and electronic claims
database. In response thereto, St. Paul/Traveler’s answered with the following,
“…the persons most familiar with the electronic claims in the matter of Collins
v. United Building Center and Travelers would be the claims adjusters and
supervisors handling the specific claim.” (Doc. 45-5, p. 9). In his brief, Collins
set forth the rational for obtaining this information as follows:
[A]n information technology witness knows the information that the
company has available. I have deposed such witnesses and learned
information that I did not get from anyone else. An IT witness knows where
information is and how to find it. As non-exclusive examples; perhaps the
8
company tracks each adjuster’s allowance of denial rates; perhaps the
company tracks how much money each adjuster pays out in claims; perhaps
the company track which “IME” physicians are chosen for which states, and
how much money each “IME” adjuster [sic] save the company. . . . A company
lives on information, and I’m entitled to find out what information the company
has, and what it does with that information, and who has access to that
information, etc. (Doc. 41, p. 11).
Collins’ Interrogatory 4 seeks the identity of the person who is most
familiar with how records are maintained and what records are maintained.
After lodging that the interrogatory was unduly burdensome and not calculated
to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, St. Paul/Travelers again responded
that the person most knowledgeable with the maintenance and retention of
these records would be “the claims adjusters and supervisors assigned to that
particular claim.” (Doc. 45-5, p. 9).
St. Paul/Travelers defends its responses saying that to locate a person
would be unduly burdensome, not calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and that the answer provided is sufficient. The court
finds St. Paul/Traveler’s answer woefully insufficient and its objections without
merit. The court is skeptical that a claims adjuster or their supervisor would
be as knowledgeable about record retention and the electronic claims systems.
As the court has previously observed, “As businesses, including the insurance
industry, move to electronic records, more and more of the heart of the
business is stored in computer data bases. Often the end user of these systems
9
has little insight into the information available as a whole. Often access to the
whole of the information available is restricted. If one seeks an overview of what
is stored, where it is stored, how to access that information, and who may
access it, an IT person is the likely best person to provide that information.
Rather than being unnecessary, it is probably the most efficient way for [a
plaintiff] to obtain the obviously relevant information.” Gowan v. Mid Century
Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503, 515 (D.S.D. 2015). The interrogatories are specific
and clear. St. Paul/Traveler’s answers to these interrogatories were evasive or
incomplete. The court grants Collins’ motion to compel as to Interrogatory 3 &
4.
Interrogatory 13: Facts supporting affirmative defense
Collins requested St. Paul/Travelers to identify each fact which supports
each affirmative defense. St. Paul/Travelers objects and argues that the court
should defer in requiring a response until the close of discovery. Rule 1 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that these rule, “should be
construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure
the judge, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Although permissible under Fed.R.Civ.P 33(a)(2)
for the court to order that the answer be given at the close of discovery or at a
pretrial conference as argued by St. Paul/Travelers, doing so would not result
in the speedy and inexpensive determination of the action. On the contrary, if
St. Paul/Travelers have facts which support an affirmative defense and they
are not required to produce them after discovery is closed, it likely will lead to
10
discovery being re-opened and witnesses being re-deposed. St. Paul/Travelers
must identify facts supporting its affirmative defenses. The court grants
Collins’ motion to compel as to Interrogatory 13.
Interrogatory 14: Identify location of documents not in
its possession or control
Collins sought to have St. Paul/Travelers identify any person or entity
who is in possession of any document requested by the defendant, which is not
in the possession of St. Paul/Travelers. In response, St. Paul/Travelers
objected on the grounds of attorney-client and work-product privileges, then
states that it will only respond for itself and not for what other person or
entities may have in their possession. Collins’ motion to compel is granted to
the extent that if St. Paul/Travelers is aware of any person or entity who has
possession or any document which is requested by the defendant, it must
identify those persons. St. Paul/Travelers must supplement its response if
additional persons/entities with documentation become known to it at a later
date
III.
Request for Production
2.
Request for Production 3: All documents that allow
reconstruction of activities relative to Collins worker’s compensation
benefits outside the dates of May 10, 2011, to August 28, 2014
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. Accordingly, Collins’
motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production 3 is denied as moot.
(Doc. 46, p. 12).
11
3.
Request for Production 4: Personnel files of Anne Denny,
Mary Jo Gray, their supervisor, the supervisor’s supervisor, and the
supervisor of the supervisor to the supervisor.
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. Accordingly, Collins’
motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production 4 is denied as moot.
(Doc. 46, p. 13).
4.
Request for Production 5: Employment agreements
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers confirmed that no such information exists. Accordingly,
Collins’ motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production 5 is denied as
moot. (Doc. 46, p. 14).
5.
Request for Production 6 & 7: Bates number of
organizational charts
Collins concedes that St. Paul/Travelers provided Bates stamp numbers
for Request for Production 6 & 7. Accordingly, as the motion relates to the
Bates numbers for RFP 6 & 7, the motion is denied as moot.
As it relates to organizational chart that includes Stephanie Larson, the
court finds this document relevant and discoverable. The court grants the
motion and St. Paul/Traveler’s shall either produce an organizational chart
containing Stephanie Larson, or otherwise identify where on the organizational
chart she would be located.
12
6.
Request for Production 8: quality assurance audits
Collins seeks all quality assurance audits since January 1, 2009, to the
present. St. Paul/Traveler’s provided all quality assurance audits as it pertains
to the Collins cases. Collins moved to compel on the grounds that the request
seeks all quality assurance audits on all claims handlers and supervisors, not
merely those conducted on Collins’ case. This court has traditionally required
disclosure of quality assurance audits in insurance bad faith cases. Lyon v.
Bankers Life and Cas. Co., Civ. No., 09-5070-JLV, 2001 WL 124629 (D.S.D.
January 14, 2011). “Claims adjusters are frequently reminded that their job is
to pay “nothing more, nothing less” than a claim requires. In re Farmers
Insurance Exchange, 481 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2007). Claims adjusters
may be “subject to quality assurance audits at any time.... The primary goal of
the audits is to determine ‘lost economic opportunity,’ a subjective assessment
of the difference between what was paid and what could have been paid if the
adjuster had correctly handled the claim.” Id. “The audits ensure that adjusters
are following FIE's ‘best practices,’ which are any actions that can be
implemented to prevent lost economic opportunity.” Lyon, 2001 WL 124629 at
¶9. However, the court also has found it appropriate to limit those audits to
the auditors and reports associated with the plaintiff’s claim. Id. St.
Paul/Traveler’s has provided these materials. Accordingly, the court denies the
motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production 8.
13
7.
Request for Production 10 & 11: salary, bonuses,
commissions, awards, or incentive pay
Collins concedes that his is able to identify the documents relating to
compensation and therefore, he is abandoning his request that the court order
St. Paul/Traveler’s identify the relevant Bates numbers. Accordingly, this
portion of the motion is denied as moot.
However, Collins asks the court to order St. Paul/Travelers either
produce the document or state that they have produced the material requested.
Collins’ motion to compel is granted only to the extent that if there are any
such documents that have not been produced, it immediately must make
reasonable and thorough efforts to identify documents either in paper or
electronic form that are responsive to Collins’ request and to supplement its
response if additional documents become known to it at a later date.
8.
Request for Production 12 & 13: Goals, target, objective
for claims payments, loss ratios
The discovery request for information to address efforts to reduce loss
ratios or claims severity costs is discoverable information and is historically
required to be produced by this court. Kirschenman v. Auto-Owners Ins., 280
F.R.D. 474, 486 (D.S.D. 2012); Gowan v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503,
513 (D.S.D. 2015); Dziadek v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., No. CIV 11-4134-RAL,
2014 WL 820049, at *13 (D.S.D. Mar. 3, 2014).
Collins’ motion to compel is granted only to the extent that if there are
any such documents that have not been produced, it immediately must make
14
reasonable and thorough efforts to identify documents either in paper or
electronic form that are responsive to Collins’ request and to supplement its
response if additional documents become known to it at a later date.
9-11. Request for Production 16: transcripts from cases
outside South Dakota; Request for Production 17: complaints made to
state insurance departments outside South Dakota; Request for
Production 18: regulatory actions outside South Dakota
The discovery request for transcripts, complaints made to state
insurance departments, and regulatory actions outside South Dakota has been
found to be relevant and discoverable and are historically required to be
produced by this court. Lyon v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., No. CIV. 09-5070JLV, 2011 WL 124629 (D.S.D. Jan. 14, 2011); Nye v. Hartford Acc. & Indem.
Co., No. CIV. 12-5028-JLV, 2013 WL 3107492 (D.S.D. June 18, 2013);
Lillibridge v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. CIV. 10-4105-KES, 2013 WL 1896825
(D.S.D. May 3, 2013). The court will grant to motion to compel as it relates to
Request for Production 16, 17, and 18.
12.
Request for Production 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23: specify
whether defendants have produced all the materials requested.
Collins’ motion to compel is granted only to the extent that if there are
any such documents that have not been produced, it immediately must make
reasonable and thorough efforts to identify documents either in paper or
electronic form that are responsive to Collins’ request and to supplement its
response if additional documents become known to it at a later date.
15
13.
Request for Production 24: agreements to defend this
case, pay for defense, indemnify the award
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. Accordingly, Collins’
motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production 24 is denied as moot.
(Doc. 46, p. 27).
14.
Request for Production 26: whether the manuals, guides,
etc. that have been produced are all the materials requested
Collins’ motion to compel is granted only to the extent that if there are
any such documents that have not been produced, it immediately must make
reasonable and thorough efforts to identify documents either in paper or
electronic form that are responsive to Collins’ request and to supplement its
response if additional documents become known to it at a later date.
15.
Request for Production 27, 28, & 29: Dr. Segal’s records
As it relates to Request for Production 27, Collins sought all “documents,
including manuals, directives, guidelines, rules, internal newsletters, training
information, procedures, and email that you distributed to claims personnel
from January 1, 2009, to the present, that mention Nolan Segal, M.D.” (Doc.
45-6, p. 14). St. Paul/Traveler’s objected on the grounds that the request is
beyond the scope of discovery, is vague and ambiguous, overly-broad, unduly
burdensome, oppressive, privilege, and work product. Collins’ claim, in part, is
grounded in the belief that St. Paul/Traveler’s selected Dr. Segal as their IME
physician because he is biased in St. Paul/Traveler’s favor. The court finds
16
these documents are relevant or likely to lead to relevant information as to
whether Dr. Segal is biased, whether St. Paul/Traveler’s knew he was biased,
and therefore employed him as a means to deny claims. The court grants the
motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production 27.
As it relates to Request for Production 28 and 29, Collins acknowledges
that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St. Paul/Travelers provided the
requested information. Accordingly, Collins’ motion to compel as it relates to
Request for Production 28 and 29 is denied as moot. (Doc. 46, p. 12).
16.
Request for Production 40: nurse case manager
documents held by attorney Charles Larson
Collins’ motion to compel is granted only to the extent that if there are
any such documents that have not been produced, it immediately must make
reasonable and thorough efforts to identify documents either in paper or
electronic form that are responsive to Collins’ request and to supplement its
response if additional documents become known to it at a later date.
17.
Request for Production 44: public financial statement
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Traveler’s provided the requested information as to Defendant St. Paul.
(Doc. 46, p. 31). Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot as it relates to St.
Paul.
However, Travelers has not provided the same information to Collins as it
pertains to Travelers. It maintains that this information is publicly held
information. The information is relevant and discoverable. St. Paul/Travelers
17
is in a better position to obtain accurate information and provide the same to
Collins. The motion to compel as it relates to Travelers is granted.
18.
Request for Production 45: billing records of Charles
Larson
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. (Doc. 46, p. 32).
Accordingly, Collins’ motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production
45 is denied as moot.
19.
Request for Production 46: disciplinary actions re:
Collins’ worker’s compensation claim
Collins acknowledges that subsequent to filing the motion to compel, St.
Paul/Travelers provided the requested information. (Doc. 46, p. 32).
Accordingly, Collins’ motion to compel as it relates to Request for Production
46 is denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
Good cause appearing, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. 39] is granted in part
and denied in part as more specifically described above. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall provide the requested discovery within 21
days of the date of this order.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A), any party may seek reconsideration
of this order before the district court upon a showing that the order is clearly
18
erroneous or contrary to law. The parties have fourteen (14) days after service
of this order to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A),
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. See FED. R. CIV. P.
72(a); 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A). Failure to file timely objections will result in
the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Id. Objections must be
timely and specific in order to require review by the district court. Thompson
v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.
1986).
DATED this 30th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
DANETA WOLLMANN
United States Magistrate Judge
19
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?