Houweling's Nurseries Oxnard et al v. Robertson

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 21 Motion for Discovery; denying 21 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 5/12/2015. (jwt)

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

HOUWELING’S NURSERIES OXNARD,
INC., a California corporation; HOUWELING
UTAH PROPERTY, INC., a Utah
corporation; HNL HOLDINGS, LTD, a
Canadian controlled private corporation;
HOUWELING UTAH HOLDINGS, INC., a
Utah corporation; and HNL UTAH
HOLDING, LTD, a Canadian private
corporation,
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-00611-RJS-PMW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

GEORGE ROBERTSON, an individual,
Defendant and Counterclaimant.
Before the court is defendant and counterclaimant George Robertson’s (“Defendant”)
short form discovery motion regarding the initial disclosure of documents by plaintiffs and
counterclaim defendants Houweling’s Nurseries Oxnard, Inc., Houweling Utah Property, Inc.,
HNL Holdings, Ltd., Houweling Utah Holdings, Inc., and HNL Utah Holding, Ltd.
(“Plaintiffs”).1
Defendant asserts that this is “not a particularly complex case” and that Plaintiffs’
production of over 47,000 pages violates rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs disagree with Defendant. Plaintiffs assert that the case is complex and
that they are being thorough in their disclosure of documents.
1

Docket no. 21.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a party to provide as part of its initial disclosure:
a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has
in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or
defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.
Rule 1 provides that the Federal Rules of Civil procedures “should be construed and
administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” (emphasis added). Effective December 1, 2015, Rule 26(b) will be amended to
limit the scope of discovery to be “proportional to the needs of the case.”
At this early stage, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs are being thorough and
the documents are necessary, or whether they are hiding proverbial needles in a haystack of
documents. While the court expresses some concern over the volume of documents, that concern
is tempered by experience—the norm is that parties usually complain about the paucity of
documents produced.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Defendant’s motion is DENIED
without prejudice. If in the normal course of discovery, Plaintiffs do not narrow their production
of documents and the production appears truly excessive or disproportionate to the issues,
Defendant may renew the motion, and the court will consider appropriate remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
2