Opinion
6:20-cv-2189-CEM-DCI
12-01-2022
PROSLIDE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. WHITEWATER WEST INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant.
ORDER
DANIEL C. IRCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court for consideration with oral argument on the following motions:
MOTION: Defendant's Expedited Short Form Discovery Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Competent 30(b)(6) Witness for Deposition (Doc. 131)
FILED: November 23, 2022
MOTION: Defendant's Expedited Short Form Discovery Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 145)
FILED: November 30, 2022
MOTION: Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Identified as Missing from Plaintiff's Document Production (Doc. 147)
FILED: November 30, 2022
THEREON it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. 131) is DENIED; Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 145) is GRANTED in part; and Motion to Compel Production (Doc. 147) is DENIED without prejudice.
On November 23, 2022, WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd. (Defendant) filed a Motion to Compel Competent Rule 30(b)(6) Witness following the deposition of ProSlide Technology, Inc's (Plaintiff) corporate representative. Doc. 131 (Motion to Compel). In support of the Motion to Compel, Defendant filed a placeholder rough draft transcript of that deposition under seal with leave of Court. Docs. 140, 142. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition and the Court set a hearing for argument on the Motion to Compel. Docs. 133, 135, 139. The day before the hearing, Defendant filed an Expedited Short Form Discovery Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 145) (Motion to Shorten Time) and Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Identified as Missing from Plaintiff's Document Production. Doc. 147 (Motion to Compel Production).
The Motion to Shorten Time relates to other placeholder transcripts and exhibits designated as “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY,” which Defendant cites to in filings in this case. Doc. 145 at 1-2. Defendant requests that the Court shorten Plaintiff's time to respond to the placeholder pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(d), shorten Plaintiff's time to file a motion to seal, and shorten time to hear that motion to seal. Id. at 2.
With respect to the Motion to Compel, Defendant seeks an order to compel Plaintiff to produce documents allegedly missing from the discovery production “with the existing discovery deadlines for [Defendant] to conduct non-expert depositions of [Plaintiff] and to provide its opening expert reports extended accordingly.” Doc. 147 at 3.
The Court conducted a hearing on December 1, 2022, and for the reasons stated at the hearing it is ORDERED that:
On November 30, 2022, Defendant also filed a Motion to Compel Further Testimony on Ron Mickovitch and Motion to Modify Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order Docs. 144, 146. The Court did not rule on these motions but clarified at the hearing that the Local Rules govern Plaintiff's time to respond to the Motion to Modify even though it is designated as a “Motion to Compel” on the docket.
1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Competent Rule 30(b)(6) Witness (Doc.131) is DENIED;
2. Defendant's Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 145) is GRANTED in part to the extent that:
a. Plaintiff may file a motion to seal under Local Rule 1.11(d) on or before December 5, 2022;
b. if Plaintiff files a motion to seal within the allotted time, Defendant shall file a response on or before December 6, 2022;
c. if Plaintiff does not file a motion to seal under Local Rule 1.11(d) within the allotted time, Defendant may file the documents at issue in the Motion to Shorten Time in the public record on December 6, 2022; and
d. the remainder of the Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 145) is DENIED;
3. Defendant' Motion to Compel Production (Doc. 147) is DENIED without prejudice; and
4. the Court declines to require the payment of reasonable expenses to oppose the motions to compel as Defendant's arguments were substantially justified. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B).