Alvion Properties, Inc. et al v. Weber et al

Filing 526

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above in this memorandum, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS the motion for protective order filed by Mr. Weber and Mr. Chauveau 493 and ORDERS that they not be required to serve responses to the wr itten discovery filed as Docket Entry Nos. 493-1 through 493-9. For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge DENIES Mr. de la Motte and Mr. West's motion to compel and for sanctions, identified in this record as their "motion for preclusion order" 494 . It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 2/15/12. (xc:Pro se party by email notification.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ALVION PROPERTIES, INC., SHIRLEY)
K. MEDLEY, and HAROLD M.
)
REYNOLDS,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BERND H. WEBER, RAYMONDE WEBER, )
CLAUDE J. CHAUVEAU, AMERICAN
)
GULF FINANCE CORP., ALVION
)
PARTNERS, LLC, AGF REALTY
)
SOLUTIONS, INC., TIMEDATA
)
HOLDINGS, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
BERND H. WEBER, CLAUDE J.
)
CHAUVEAU,
)
)
Counter-Claimants,
)
)
Harold M. Reynolds, Shirley K. )
Medley, Donald M. Medley,
)
Farmers State Bank Of Alto Pass,)
Brad Henshaw, Allain de la
)
Motte, Elizabeth Melland,
)
Robert M. West, Melland Group, )
LLC,
)
Counter-Defendants.
)

NO. 3:08-0866
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending
discovery.

in

this

case

are

two

motions

related

to

Third-party plaintiffs Bernd H. Weber and Claude J.

Chauveau have filed their motion for protective order pursuant to
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket Entry
No. 493).

In apparent response, third-party defendants Allain de

la Motte and Robert M. West have filed their “Motion For Preclusion
Order With Prejudice” (Docket Entry No. 494).

In summary, Mr.

Weber and Mr. Chauveau seek a protective order relieving them from
the obligation to respond to written discovery served by Mr. de la
Motte

and

Mr.

oppressive,

West

unduly

on

the

grounds

burdensome,

primary purpose of annoyance.

and

that

such

apparently

discovery

served

for

is
the

On the other hand, Mr. de la Motte

and Mr. West insist that Mr. Weber and Mr. Chauveau should be
compelled to respond to the subject written discovery and, if they
fail to do so, certain sanctions should be imposed, including the
sanction of precluding Weber and Chauveau from offering contrary
evidence at trial.
As a general rule, courts are granted wide discretion to
manage discovery. Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007). In particular, Rule 26(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly authorize the court, for
good cause, to issue an order to protect a party or person “from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,”
including the “forbidding [of] the disclosure or discovery.”
It appears from the record that between the dates of July
15, 2011, and July 20, 2011, third-party defendants de la Motte and
West, who are proceeding pro se and who have similar if not
identical

interests

in

this

action,

served

certain

written

discovery upon third-party plaintiffs Weber and Chauveau, who also
are proceeding pro se and have similar if not identical interests.
This written discovery collectively comprises some 587 pages, and
includes 1,908 requests for admissions together with multiple
additional

interrogatories

and

documents.
2

requests

for

production

of

Although the undersigned Magistrate Judge has admittedly
not read every single request for admission, interrogatory and
request for production of documents at issue here, the Court has
reviewed enough of these written discovery requests to ascertain
their general nature and character.

Despite the fact that some of

these discovery requests are characterized by their authors as
“revised” and “corrected,” the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds
that both the number and the character of these written discovery
requests are oppressive and unduly burdensome, and are on their
face an abuse of the discovery process.
The Court acknowledges that neither Mr. de la Motte nor
Mr. West apparently is an attorney.

This may well explain in part

their apparent difficulty in recognizing what is truly pertinent to
the issues in this case and identifying efficient methods to obtain
the discovery they legitimately need.

However, the Court also

understands that none of these four individuals is a stranger to
litigation,

since

Mr.

de

la

Motte

and

Mr.

West

have

been

adversaries of Mr. Weber and Mr. Chauveau in litigation previously
filed in Oregon implicating some of the same issues present in this
case.

Regardless of the reasons that prompted the serving of this

written discovery, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that it
exceeds

by

any

reasonable

measure

the

limits

of

appropriate

discovery in this case and, therefore, that a protective order is
appropriate.
For the reasons stated above in this memorandum, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS the motion for protective order
filed by Mr. Weber and Mr. Chauveau (Docket Entry No. 493) and
ORDERS that they not be required to serve responses to the written
3

discovery filed as Docket Entry Nos. 493-1 through 493-9.
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge DENIES Mr. de la Motte and Mr. West’s motion to compel and
for sanctions, identified in this record as their “motion for
preclusion order” (Docket Entry No. 494).
It is so ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

4