Opinion
1:02-cv-1 20-4(WLS)
August 22, 2003
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Defendant's, Monsanto Company, thirty-eight (38) Motions to Compel and Plaintiffs' two (2) Motions to Compel. Defendants move pursuant to Fed.R. CIV. P. 37 to compel Plaintiffs to respond fully to Monsanto's First Set of Interrogatories To Each Plaintiff. (Doc. Nos. 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186). Plaintiffs move pursuant to Fed.R. CIV. P. 37 to compel Monsanto Company to respond fully to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and First Document Requests To Defendant Monsanto Company. (Doc. No. 77). Similarly, Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant Pharmacia Corporation to fully respond to Plaintiffs First Request For Production of Documents and First Interrogatories of Defendant Pharmacia. (Doc. No. 81).
Upon review of said motions, the Court finds that they should be denied without prejudice. The discovery sought by the parties relates to the merits of this case. Further, the discovery disputes at issue stem from voluntary discovery. The discovery was served by both parties prior to the Court's Rule 26(0 scheduling and discovery conference held on August 8, 2002. Consistent with the Court's order entered thereafter, discovery was stayed on the merits I; and allowed to proceed on the issue of transfer only at the parties' request. (Doc. No. 32). It Ii I was the not the Court's intention to entertain motions to compel or for the "20/20/20" rule to apply to any discovery sought other than that relating to the limited issue of transfer. As noted in the Court's Rule 26(0 order dated May 6, 2002, "the Court will not entertain any motion by any party alleging non-compliance with any such voluntary discovery, prior to the entry of a discovery/scheduling order. . . ." (Rule 26(0 Order, n. 1, Doc. No. 5). The Court notes that it appears that a break down occurred in the parties' willingness to continue to engage in voluntary discovery as well as to act in good faith to resolve discovery disputes. The parties do not, for the most part, challenge their duty to produce the outstanding discovery on legal grounds. Thus, the Court concludes it is in the interest of both parties to start new. Moreover, having found that transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is appropriate, the Court concludes that any issues presented by the parties' motions to compel that remain are more appropriately addressed by the transferee court. Therefore, the Court finds that the parties' motions to compel should be, and hereby are, DENIED without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel (Doc. Nos. 77, 81), should be, and hereby are, DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' Motions to Compel (Doc. Nos. 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186), should be, and hereby are, DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED,