Bearden et al v. Honeywell International Inc.

Filing 148

ORDER: Telephone conference held on 7/22/2011. The Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of Ms. Zeigler's letter, referenced above, for the record in this case. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Letter Brief Sent 7/20/2011 145 is DENIED. As discussed at the conclusion of today's telephone case management conference, if defendant Honeywell wishes to exclude certain of its operating divisions from the obligation to search for and produce records in discovery because the business cond ucted by those operating divisions do not implicate ozone or its associated health hazards, Honeywell may file a properly supported motion to do so. Mr. Mintzer has stated that, barring unforseen difficulties, he should be able to prepare and file such a motion by 7/29/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 7/22/11. (dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES BEARDEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:09-1035
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

O R D E R
The undersigned Magistrate Judge conducted a telephone
case management conference with counsel for the parties on July 22,
2011.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike
(Docket Entry No. 145), which seeks an order striking a letter
dated July 20, 2011, from Ms. Zeigler, local counsel for Honeywell,
addressed to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and copied to counsel
for all parties.

In brief summary, Ms. Zeigler’s letter advises

the Court of an issue related to discovery that the parties have
been unable to resolve by agreement, and about which the parties’
counsel intended to seek a telephone conference with the Court.
The Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of Ms.
Zeigler’s letter, referenced above, for the record in this case.
As discussed with counsel for the parties during today’s
telephone conference, the undersigned Magistrate Judge does not
consider Ms. Zeigler’s letter to the undersigned to be improper or
a violation of local rules.

Instead, the Court regards it as Ms.

Zeigler’s way of giving the Court advance notice of the nature of
the issue to be discussed in an upcoming telephone case management
conference with counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s

motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 145) is DENIED.
As discussed at the conclusion of today’s telephone case
management conference, if defendant Honeywell wishes to exclude
certain of its operating divisions from the obligation to search
for and produce records in discovery because the business conducted
by

those

operating

divisions

do

not

implicate

ozone

or

its

associated health hazards, Honeywell may file a properly supported
motion to do so.

Mr. Mintzer has stated that, barring unforseen

difficulties, he should be able to prepare and file such a motion
on or before Friday, July 29, 2011.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

2