Hunley v. Glencore, LTD, Inc et al

Filing 180

ORDER Regarding Discovery Disputes as set forth more fully herein.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 08/06/2013. (KAW)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JEREMIAH HUNLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GLENCORE LTD, INC., and
EAST TENNESSEE ZINC CO., LLC,
Defendants.

No. 3:10-CV-455
(PHILLIPS/GUYTON)

ORDER
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Local Rules, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
Standing Order 13-02. The parties appeared for a telephone conference on August 5, 2013, to
address discovery disputes.

Attorney Richard Collins appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Attorneys Gabriel Hertzberg and P. Edward Pratt appeared on behalf of Defendant Glencore,
LTD, Inc. (“Glencore”). Attorney Lynn Peterson appeared on behalf of Defendant East
Tennessee Zinc Company, LLC (“ETZ”). Finally, Attorney Kristen Stevenson appeared on
behalf on the intervening Plaintiff Commerce & Industry Insurance Co., Inc.
Initially, the parties discussed disclosing the names and addresses of the Plaintiff’s
witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff stated that he has
been gathering the information and will provide it to the Defendant. Subject to the parties’
agreement, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s request for Rule 26(1)(A)(i) information. In
addition, the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff provide the video of the exemplar test performed
by his expert.
Next, the Plaintiff requested the last known addresses of two former employees, Diego
Bellido and David Porter. Defendant Glencore stated that it had not received a formal discovery

1

request. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s request and ORDERS the Defendant to provide this
information to the Plaintiff, without the necessity of a formal discovery request.
Defendant Glencore asserted that it had not received certain IRS records that were subject
to a prior Court Order [Doc. 142]. The Plaintiff stated that the IRS form was returned as deficient
but that he is working on correcting the mistakes. The Court DIRECTED the Plaintiff to sign
the necessary forms and to send the information directly to the IRS.
Defendant Glencore also asserted that it would like a copy of the new medical records
submitted by the Plaintiff’s psychologist. The Plaintiff responded that he would immediately
send the Defendant a copy of the records once they are available. Because the parties have
agreed on this issue, the Court GRANTS the request.
Finally, the parties’ oral motions to extend deadlines were GRANTED as follows:
(1) Defendant ETZ has until August 14, 2013, to submit its expert
disclosures;
(2) Daubert motions are due on or before August 21, 2013;
(3) The Plaintiff shall file his response to the motion for summary
judgment on or before August 16, 2013;
(4) Defendant Glencore shall file its reply to the Plaintiff’s
response on or before August 30, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

2