Spencer v. Harley Davidson Inc et al

Filing 139

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 135 Motion for Short Term Discovery to Compel Plaintiff's Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/26/19 (alt)

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

KEVIN SPENCER,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00427-DN-PMW

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC;
et al.,

District Judge David Nuffer
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Defendants.

District Judge David Nuffer referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Defendant BWI North America, Inc.’s
(“BWI”) Short Form Discovery Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to
Requests for Production of Documents (“Motion”). 2 The court has carefully reviewed the written
memoranda submitted by the parties. 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 motion on the basis of the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kevin Spencer (“Plaintiff”) initiated this case against Harley-Davidson, Inc. and
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. (collectively, “Harley-Davidson”) in Utah state court on

1
2

See docket no. 132.
See docket no. 135.

April 25, 2016, for various product liability violations. 3 On May 20, 2016, Harley-Davidson
removed the case to federal court. 4 BWI was added as a party on April 26, 2017. 5 BWI
responded to the amended complaint with a motion to dismiss.6 Following briefing, Judge Nuffer
denied BWI’s motion to dismiss.7
On May 8, 2019, BWI served Plaintiff with its first set of discovery requests, 8 which
contained eleven (11) interrogatories, twenty (20) requests for production, and eleven (11)
requests for admission (hereafter referred to as “Requests for Documents” or “Request(s)”).
Plaintiff responded to BWI’s Requests for Documents on June 13, 2019. 9
In the instant Motion, BWI argues Plaintiff improperly responded to BWI’s Requests for
Documents by not organizing or labeling the responses to correspond to the categories in the
Requests. BWI asserts Plaintiff instead blanketly refers to hundreds of previously produced
documents—that were produced before BWI was a party to this action—without specifying by
bates number or otherwise which documents are responsive to which Requests. 10 Additionally,
Plaintiff’s responses fail to identify whether new responsive documents to the Requests are
available and/or will be produced. 11 BWI asserts the manner through which Plaintiff has
responded to BWI’s Requests for Documents fails to comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) by
avoiding the identification of documents that support Plaintiff’s claims, and impermissibly

3

See docket no. 2-3.
See docket no. 2.
5
See docket no. 32.
6
See docket no. 54.
7
See docket no. 118.
8
See docket no. 135-2.
9
See docket no. 135-3.
10
See docket no. 135 at ¶¶ 1-3.
11
See id. at ¶ 4.
4

2

requiring BWI to sift through hundreds of documents of previously produced records—placing
BWI in a position to guess which documents are responsive to each request. 12
Plaintiff argues that his responses comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) because the
documents produced were provided in a form as kept in the usual course of business; and
therefore, Plaintiff has met his obligation under Rule 34, and is not required to organize and label
his responses or the documents to correspond to categories in the Requests. 13
BWI also states that Plaintiff agreed to supplement its Requests for Documents No. 1, 5,
10, 16, and 17, but, to date, has failed to do so. 14 Plaintiff asserts that he supplemented his
responses to BWI’s Requests for Documents No. 1, 5, 10, 16, and 17 on August 13, 2019. 15
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party must produce documents as they
are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the
categories in the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). The purpose of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) is to
“facilitate production of records in a useful manner and to minimize discovery costs.” Menard v.
Chrysler Group, LLC, No. 14 CV 6325 VB, 2015 WL 5472724, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2015)
(citation and quotation omitted). Likewise, the spirit of Rule 1 requires the court and parties to
civil actions to construe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

12

See id. at ¶ 5.
See docket no. 136 at 3.
14
See id. at ¶ 5.
15
See docket no. at ¶ 13.
13

3

In the present action, Plaintiff’s responses to BWI’s Requests for Documents make
reference to hundreds of previously produced documents provided by Plaintiff in his previous
Initial Disclosures and responses to written discovery requests responsive to the HarleyDavidson. 16 Because Plaintiff failed to organize the documents in any way, BWI has no way of
knowing whether Plaintiff has complied with its Requests. Plaintiff neither labeled them to
correspond with the categories that were in each Request, nor verified that no such additional
responsive documents exist. There is no indication that the documents previously produced by
Plaintiff were produced as maintained in the ordinary course of business; rather, Plaintiff offers
this explanation as to how the responses were organized, not in his initial discovery responses,
but for the first time only in response to the instant Motion as justification. The court finds the
form of Plaintiff’s responses to BWI Requests to be lethargic, elusive, and contrary to
proceeding in a just, speedy, and inexpensive fashion. Accordingly, BWI’s Motion is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Defendant BWI North America, Inc.’s Short Form Discovery
Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of
Documents 17 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall within ten (10) days from the date of this order:
(1)

Supplement his responses to BWI’s Requests for Production of Documents with

appropriate organization and labeling that indicate which documents are responsive to which

16

All claims against Harley-Davidson were dismissed with prejudice on January 22, 2018. See
docket no. 112.
17
See docket no. 135.
4

Request;
(2)

If no new documents are being produced to BWI’s Requests, include a

verification statement in the supplemental responses that all responsive documents have been
produced;
(3)

If new documents will be produced in response to BWI’s Requests, describe the

documents to be produced and provide a timeline for their production; and
(4)

Produce documents responsive to BWI’s Requests for Production of Documents

nos. 1, 5, 10, 16, and 17, to the extent Plaintiff has not already, in accordance with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of November, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

5