Opinion
4:20-cv-852-DPM
06-08-2021
SAMUEL ACKER; ARLAN PECKHAM; and ROGER WINNEBERGER, III, Each Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. PROTECH SOLUTIONS, INC. DEFENDANT
ORDER
D.P.MARSHALL JR.UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1.Acker and Peckham's motion to reply, Doc. 73, is granted. Proposed reply, Doc. 73-1, deemed filed. In the future, any moving party may reply within seven calendar days of the response.
2. Acker and Peckham's motion to extend their expert report deadline, Doc. 70, is granted as modified. The Tracepoint dispute provides good cause. As Protech recognizes, though, all the remaining deadlines will need to be extended. An Amended Final Scheduling Order, which echoes the current one in the staging of the case, will issue.
3. Stipulation, Doc. 72, noted. Plaintiff Roger Winneberger, III is dismissed without prejudice.
4. Joint report of discovery dispute, Doc. 74, appreciated. Acker and Peckham suggest a workable modification to accommodate the 100-mile rule by offering Husbeby or some other agreed location as the place of production. The requested materials aren't duplicative of written discovery issued to Protech; Tracepoint and Protech purportedly possess different information. And any confidential unemployment compensation information can be redacted, thus avoiding the statutory bars. Tracepoint is willing to produce the underlying data. The fighting issue is therefore whether the forensic report is protected. Tracepoint must file its report, and the engagement correspondence between Tracepoint and Clark Hill PLC, under seal for in camera review by 15 June 2021. Please send a courtesy copy (on paper and in electronic form) to Little Rock chambers.
The Court will consider Tracepoint's motion and brief, Doc. 66 & 67, in deciding the dispute. If Acker and Peckham want to make additional argument, they may file a brief by 15 June 2021. If they do, Tracepoint may file a reply by 22 June 2021.
So Ordered.