Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sagness v. Duplechin

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

March 29, 2017

MONICA A. SAGNESS, Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE L. DUPLECHIN, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the court on Defendant Jesse L. Duplechin's Motion to Compel (Filing No. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         BACKGROUND

         This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. On October 31, 2016, Defendant served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Plaintiff. Plaintiff provided her initial responses on December 14, 2016. Plaintiff's responses contained several “Objections of General Application.” (Filing No. 24-1 at CM/ECF pp. 22-23, ¶¶ A-H). Plaintiff also raised several objections to specific interrogatories and requests for production. After counsel for the parties discussed Plaintiff's objections to the discovery responses, Plaintiff served Amended Answers. The “Objections of General Application” and other specific objections to certain interrogatories and requests for production remained in Plaintiff's Amended Answers.

         Counsel for the parties again conferred over Defendant's continuing concerns about the nature of Plaintiff's stated objections. Specifically, Defendant requested that Plaintiff withdraw her general objections and withdraw any objections for interrogatories and requests for production for which Plaintiff provided answers over objections. The parties then participated in a telephonic conference before the undersigned Magistrate Judge in an attempt to settle the discovery dispute. No resolution was reached and Defendant subsequently filed a motion to compel. (Filing No. 22).

         Defendant requests an order granting the following relief:

1) Striking the Plaintiff's “Objections of General Application”;
2) Overruling the Plaintiff's relevance objection to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 12, and Request for Production Nos. 10, 14, and 19;
3) Overruling the Plaintiff's “Vagueness and Burdensome Objection” to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 13, and 22, and Request for Production No. 14;
4) Overruling the Plaintiff's “Legal Conclusion Objection” to Interrogatory No. 2;
5) Overruling the Plaintiff's “Defendant's Possession Objection” to Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 18, and Request for Production Nos. 18 and 19;
6) Ordering the Plaintiff to serve a privilege log for each of her “Attorney Work Product/Attorney-Client Privilege Objections” by a date deemed reasonable by the Court, such log to identify the date of the communication or tangible thing, document type (if applicable), author, recipient(s), and subject; and 7) Ordering that Defendant is entitled to recover his reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees in the amount of $500.00, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

         ANALYSIS

         Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended on December 1, 2015. The scope of permissible discovery is defined as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the party's access to relevant information, the party's resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.