First American Title Insurance et al v. Northwest Title Insurance Agency et al
Filing
195
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 106 Motion to Compel Complete Answers to 1st Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 5/19/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY, LLC,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case No. 2:15-cv-00229-DN-PMW
Plaintiffs,
v.
District Judge David Nuffer
NORTHWEST TITLE INSURANCE
AGENCY, LLC, et al.
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Defendants.
District Judge David Nuffer referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Judge Nuffer ordered the parties to follow the Short
Form Discovery Motion Procedure.2 Before the court is Defendant Michael Smith’s “Short
Form Discovery Motion Compelling Complete Answers to Michael Smith’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things – Miscellaneous.”3 The
Short Form Discovery Motion Procedure does not contemplate filing of reply briefs without a
court request. Accordingly, the court will not consider Defendant Smith’s reply brief. The
underlying motion raises two unrelated discovery issues.
First, Defendant Smith propounded discovery requesting that FATCO “[p]roduce all nonwork related emails and documents on Mark Webber’s FATCO email.”4 Defendant Smith seeks
1
Docket no. 27.
2
Docket no. 39.
3
Docket no. 106.
4
Docket no. 106-1 at 18 (Request for Production No. 1).
an order compelling FATCO to produce any of Mr. Webber’s emails specifically relating to his
work as a lay ecclesiastical leader. Defendant Smith claims that these documents are relevant to
Mr. Webber’s credibility and because FATCO alleges that certain defendants used their FATCOissued electronic equipment and/or email to help set up their competing company in violation of
their employment contracts and FATCO’s policies.
The court finds Defendant Smith’s argument unpersuasive. The emails do not appear
“relevant to [a] party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, the court does not
find that the requested discovery is “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, . . . the importance of the discovery in resolving
the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit.” Id.
Second, Defendant Smith propounded the following discovery requests:
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If you fail to unconditionally admit the following
Requests for Admission, identify all facts and legal theories for your failure to
admit.5
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce copies of all documents
relied upon in your answers to any of the foregoing Interrogatories or Requests
for Admission.6
Defendant Smith mischaracterizes FATCO’s responses and misleadingly states that
“FATCO has refused to respond to these requests.”7 FATCO did in fact respond.
While
admittedly limited, the responses from FATCO were sufficient, particularly given such
extraordinarily broad discovery requests that are likely excessive and improper.
5
Docket no. 106-1.
6
Id.
7
Docket no. 106 at 2.
2
Defendant Smith’s motion to compel8 is DENIED.
The court declines to impose
sanctions on Defendant Smith at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
8
Docket no. 106.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?