Meade Electric Co Inc v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 8/20/2013 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 19 Motion to Compel. See Order for details. (cc: all counsel) (cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MEADE ELECTRIC CO., INC.,
Plaintiff,
-vsCase No. 12-C-1014
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This case arises from the installation of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District’s landfill gas pipeline. The plaintiff, Meade Electric Company, Inc., was the
general contractor for installation of the pipeline from the Jones Island Water Reclamation
Facility to the Emerald Park landfill in Muskego. Meade contends that it is entitled to
compensation from MMSD for the removal of contaminated groundwater and wastewater.
Now before the Court is MMSD’s motion to compel Meade to answer an interrogatory
and to hold Meade’s responses to certain requests for admission inadequate.
MMSD’s tenth interrogatory asked Meade to identify its “total actual costs to
address removal of all groundwater from the Harbor Drive Area, broken out by labor,
equipment, materials, and subcontracts. For labor, provide the dates and hours worked;
for equipment, identify each piece of equipment—its ownership or rental costs; for
subcontracts, identify the work performed by each subcontractor.” In its response, which
MMSD argues is evasive and incomplete, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Meade explains that it
had no need to track actual costs since it was removing groundwater on a unit price basis.
However, Meade’s response concedes that “[a]fter MMSD wrongfully refused to abide by
the contract and issue a Modification for payment of Bit Item #5 charges, Meade
estimated costs for settlement purposes only.” ECF No. 19-2, at 3. The refusal to at least
disclose an estimate suggests that Meade is being evasive. Obviously, Meade must have
some sort of logical methodology for calculating its damages. At bottom, that is all
MMSD is asking for in this interrogatory.
Unfortunately, the balance of MMSD’s motion is too confusing to meaningfully
address. Both parties refer to the requests for admission generally and describe them in a
piecemeal fashion, but the Court cannot figure out exactly what was asked-for and why
Meade objected. Therefore, the Court cannot analyze the appropriateness of Meade’s
answers. Even if this aspect of the motion was properly briefed, MMSD failed to meet
and confer with Meade prior to filing it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
MMSD’s motion to compel [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED-IN-PART and
DENIED-IN-PART, consistent with the foregoing opinion.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-
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?