United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al

Filing 52

ORDER terminating (42) Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part (43) Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part (43) Motion for Sanctions; granting in part and denying in part (43) Motion to Dismiss; terminating (42) Motion to Compel in case 1:11-cv-00157; terminating (29) Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part (30) Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part (30) Motion for Sanctions; granting in part and denying in part (30) Motion to Dismiss; terminating (29) Motion to Compel in case 1:11-cv-00193. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 6/1/12. (GRE, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

UNITED PET SUPPLY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11-CV-157
No. 1:11-CV-193
Collier / Lee

ORDER
Before the Court are competing motions to compel filed in both of the above referenced
cases: a motion to compel and motion for sanctions filed jointly by all Defendants [1:11-cv-157,
Doc. 43; 1:11-cv-193, Doc. 30] and a motion to compel and motion for protective order filed by
Plaintiff United Pet Supply, Inc. [1:11-cv-157, Doc. 42; 1:11-cv-193, Doc. 29]. The Court held a
hearing on the motions on May 30, 2012.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, the parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For good cause, the court
may also order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter of the action. The information
sought need not be admissible in court and the burden of establishing relevancy is met where a party
shows the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Id. There are, however, ultimate and necessary boundaries to discovery. Oppenheimer
Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). “‘It is well established that the scope of discovery
is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Coleman v. American Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091,
1096 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Guy, 978 F.2d 934, 938 (6th Cir. 1992)). Thus, the

Court may limit discovery otherwise allowed by the rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
For the reasons set forth more fully during the hearing, Plaintiff’s motion [1:11-cv-157, Doc.
42; 1:11-cv-193, Doc. 29] is TERMINATED as resolved and Defendants’ joint motion [1:11-cv157, Doc. 43; 1:11-cv-193, Doc. 30] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) The parties advised the Court that their disputes concerning the production of certain
documents regarding legal expenses and fees were in the process of being resolved and that the
parties would jointly submit a proposed protective order shortly. Accordingly, the portions of the
motions related to the discovery of information regarding legal expenses and fees are DENIED AS
MOOT.
(2) Regarding Defendant McKamey’s Interrogatory No. 7, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to
supplement the information previously provided and to fully answer subparts a, c, d, and e of
Interrogatory No. 7.
(3) As for Defendant City of Chattanooga’s Interrogatory No. 6, the Court ORDERS
Plaintiff to provide Defendants with the requested information about employees of the Hamilton
Place store, for the two year period prior to the time the store closed. The Court recognizes that this
time period is longer than the time period originally stated by the Court in the hearing, but the Court
finds it is an appropriate limitation to the time period given the Court’s determination of the time
period applicable to customer complaints addressed below. The parties may confer regarding the
confidentiality of requested employee information and may include a provision regarding same in
any proposed protective order.
(4) With regard to Defendant City’s Interrogatory No. 7, which seeks information about
customer complaints about the health, care, and welfare of animals offered for sale at Plaintiff’s

2

Hamilton Place store, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide to provide the requested information
for a time period of two years prior to that store’s closing.
(5) The supplemental information ordered by the Court, as well as the information the parties
agreed to exchange amongst themselves,1 shall be provided or exchanged within 21 days from the
date of the hearing.
The parties are forewarned that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 provides for sanctions against any party
who fails to properly participate in discovery, including contempt of court. In addition to monetary
sanctions, possible sanctions that may be imposed against a party who disobeys a discovery order
or fails to answer written discovery, include:
(I)
directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as
the prevailing party claims;
(ii)
prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters
in evidence;
(iii)

striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv)

staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v)

dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi)

rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

1

The parties discussed, and apparently resolved, additional discovery issues not specifically
identified in their motions. Pursuant to E.D. Tenn. L.R. 37.2, which states that “[a]ny discovery
motion . . . shall include, in the motion itself or in an attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation
of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection which is the subject of the motion
or a copy of the actual discovery document which is the subject of the motion[]”, the Court did not
hear the discovery disputes not specifically identified. The parties commendably, however, appear
to have resolved their remaining discovery issues. While the parties did not present the details of
their resolution to the Court, they agreed the same 21 day period ordered herein would apply to their
agreed upon supplementation of the discovery responses.
3

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(I-vii).
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4