Pettit v. Aero Medical Products Co Inc et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 10/28/2015 granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. (cc: all counsel) (asc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JEFFREY W. PETTIT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-1134

AERO MEDICAL PRODUCTS CO. INC.,
et al.
Defendants.
ORDER
Currently before the court is plaintiff Jeffrey W. Pettit’s second motion to compel.
(ECF No. 41.) Following the defendants’ response and Pettit’s reply, the court held a
telephonic hearing on October 28, 2015, to discuss the motion with the parties. Based
upon the filings of the parties and the statements at the hearing, the court grants the
motion in part and denies the motion in part.
To the extent that Pettit demands “a forensic examination of Mr. Egan’s two
desktop computers, Mr. Egan’s laptop computer, Ms. Wick’s former desk-top computer
and Mr. Pettit’s former desk top computer, all with a forensic specialist of Mr. Pettit’s

choosing,” (ECF No. 41 at 16, ¶ A), the motion is granted. However, the plaintiff and the
defendants shall each bear half the cost of the forensic examination.
Pettit’s requests for “[a]n order precluding Aero Medical from introducing the
revised commission policy in this matter [and] [a]n order granting Mr. Pettit an adverse
inference instruction in connection with the revised commission policy” (ECF No. 41 at
16, ¶¶ B and C) are denied without prejudice.
Pettit’s request for “[a]n order pursuant to Rule 37(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., requiring
Aero Medical to produce all of the requested documents in their specified format
(native with metadata intact), all without further delay” (ECF No. 41 at 16, ¶ E) is
denied without prejudice. If the forensic examination reveals that the defendants have
not provided requested documents, Pettit may, after complying with the meet and
confer requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Civil Local Rule 37,
promptly seek relief from the court.
Finally, Pettit’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the
present motion to compel and for certain depositions (ECF No. 41 at 16, ¶ D) is denied.
Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 28th day of October, 2015.

_________________________
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge
2

3