Hoagland et al v. Rockin' R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 54 Motion to Compel; granting 56 Motion to Compel; granting 58 Motion to Compel; granting 60 Motion for Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 5/5/11 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

ELIZABETH ANN HOAGLAND, et al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:10-cv-478-TC-PMW

ROCKIN’ R RANCH & LODGE GUEST
OPERATIONS, INC., a Utah corporation;
et al.,
Defendants.

District Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

District Judge Tena Campbell referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court are Elizabeth Ann Hogaland, et al.’s
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) three motions to compel2 and motion to amend the scheduling order.3
Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine
the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
I. Motions to Compel
Plaintiffs have filed three motions requesting compelled responses to discovery requests
from each one of the named defendants in this case (collectively, “Defendants”). “The district
1

See docket no. 5.

2

See docket nos. 54, 56, 58.

3

See docket no. 60.

court has broad discretion over the control of discovery, and [the Tenth Circuit] will not set aside
discovery rulings absent an abuse of that discretion.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Merrill Scott &
Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted). The
general scope of discovery is governed by rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the
trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[T]he scope of discovery under the federal rules is broad
and . . . ‘discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed
to help define and clarify the issues.’” Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520
(10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)).
“Although the scope of discovery under the federal rules is broad, however, parties may not
engage in a ‘fishing expedition’ in an attempt to obtain evidence to support their claims or
defenses.” Richards v. Convergys Corp., No. 2:05-cv-790-DAK, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9131,
at *10 (D. Utah Feb. 6, 2007) (quoting Munoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp., 221 F.3d 1160, 1169
(10th Cir. 2000)).
The court has reviewed the discovery requests at issue. The court is persuaded by
Plaintiffs’ arguments and has determined that Defendants’ objections and arguments are without
merit. The court turns to addressing Defendants’ specific arguments. First, Defendants argue
that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are solely directed at seeking information about Defendants’
ability to satisfy a potential judgment. The court disagrees. Plaintiffs have convinced the court
2

that their discovery requests seek information that is directly relevant to their claims of
partnership, joint venture, and alter ego. Accordingly, that information is discoverable. Second,
Defendants argue that they are not required to produce certain documents (e.g., deeds, tax
assessments, and mortgage documents) because those documents may be available in certain
public records. The court again disagrees. Pursuant to rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendants are required to produce any documents in their “possession, custody, or
control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Finally, Defendants assert that for some discovery requests,
they have produced all documents in their possession, custody, or control. However, Defendants
have not indicated with specificity to which discovery requests that assertion applies.
Accordingly, the court will require Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a sworn affidavit or
certification for any discovery requests to which that assertion applies.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions to compel are granted. Within thirty (30) days of
the date of this order, Defendants shall provide full responses to all of the discovery requests
identified in Plaintiffs’ motions. For any privileged information, Defendants shall provide
Plaintiffs with a privilege log. For any discovery requests to which Defendants have already
produced all documents in their possession, custody, or control, Defendants shall provide
Plaintiffs with a sworn affidavit or certification to that effect.
The court recognizes that certain information to be produced by Defendants may contain
sensitive or confidential information. In order to protect that information, the parties shall
attempt to either stipulate to redaction of that information or to a suitable protective order. If
attempts to stipulate to redaction are successful, the parties may redact any information as agreed
3

upon. If attempts to stipulate to a suitable protective order are successful, the court will
favorably consider a stipulated motion for a protective order. If attempts to stipulate to either
solution are unsuccessful, either party may bring the issue to the court by way of an appropriate
motion.
As a final matter on Plaintiffs’ motions to compel, the court notes that Plaintiffs have
requested an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in bringing their
motions. The court concludes that such an award is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time
under the circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).
II. Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order
Because of the delays caused by the above-referenced discovery disputes, the court
concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause in support of entry of an amended
scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the
scheduling order is granted. The court will enter an amended scheduling order after entry of the
instant order.
*****
In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

4

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel4 are GRANTED, as detailed above.

See docket nos. 54, 56, 58.
4

2.

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the scheduling order5 is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

5

See docket no. 60.
5