Faulkner v. Wausau Business Ins. Co.
Faulkner v. Wausau Business Ins. Co.
2011 WL 13098433 (D. Ariz. 2011)
April 14, 2011
Silver, Roslyn O., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court denied Defendant's request for production of electronic discovery, including emails, blogs, web pages, color photographs, and comments from any internet blogs or social networking website accounts from February 14, 2006 to the present, as it was found to be absurdly overbroad.
Peter Faulkner, Plaintiff,
v.
Wausau Business Insurance Co., Defendant
v.
Wausau Business Insurance Co., Defendant
No. CV-10-01064-PHX-ROS
Signed April 14, 2011
Counsel
Anita Rosenthal, Steven C. Dawson, Dawson & Rosenthal PC, Phoenix, AZ, Robert J. Hommel, Robert J. Hommel PC, Scottsdale, AZ, Steven A. Gruenemeier, Law Offices of Steven A. Gruenemeier Esq., Cave Creek, AZ, for Plaintiff.Cassandra Victoria Meyer, Scott A. Salmon, Cavanagh Law Firm PA, Phoenix, AZ, Frank Falzetta, James F. McShane, Scott Sveslosky, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLC, Los Angeles, CA, Justine M. Casey, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant.
Silver, Roslyn O., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 On December 3, 2010, the Court provided explicit guidance regarding discovery disputes: “In the future, the parties must comply with the discovery dispute procedures for all disputes which could conceivably qualify as discovery disputes.” (Doc. 63). In that same Order, the Court reminded counsel that “[r]efusal to cooperate in discovery and other forms of uncompromising behavior are inconsistent with general principles of professional conduct and undermine the truth-seeking function of our adversarial system.” (Doc. 63 at 2). Despite these instructions, on March 23, 2011, Defendant submitted a unilateral discovery dispute. On March 24, 2011, the Court stated the parties “must comply with the Court's procedures” regarding discovery disputes. The Court also stated “[a]ny future deviation from the Court's discovery dispute procedures will result in sanctions against the offending party.” (Doc. 192 at 1). Despite this warning, counsel have again submitted improper discovery disputes.
On April 1, 2011, Defendant filed an Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition. Given the Court's prior orders regarding discovery disputes, it appeared Defendant merely wished to make a record of its objection to the deposition and no Court involvement was necessary. Unfortunately, later that same day Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the objection. (Doc. 221). That motion clearly presented the issue of the deposition as a discovery dispute requiring Court intervention. Thus, rather than filing an objection and motion to strike that objection, the parties should have filed a joint statement of discovery dispute. The parties' failure to do so is inexplicable.
On April 8, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file excess pages in support of a motion for a protective order. According to that four-page document, the parties have yet another discovery dispute but Defendant needs fifteen pages to set forth its position regarding the dispute. While Defendant may believe the issue is complex and requires extensive briefing, the Court already ordered the parties to comply with the discovery dispute procedures for “all disputes.” (Doc. 63). Defendant's decision to file this discovery-related motion is inexplicable.
Both sides refuse to abide by the Court's discovery related orders. Rather than sanction both parties, the Court will again warn the parties that the failure to follow Court procedures will result in sanctions. Any future discovery disputes submitted in an improper form will result in an immediate order to show cause why the offending party should not be sanctioned.
There are two properly submitted discovery disputes pending before the Court. First, Plaintiff has objected to Defendant's electronic discovery requests. And second, Dr. John L. Beghin objects to a subpoena duces tecum. The Court resolves those disputes as follows.
Defendant served requests for production demanding Plaintiff produce “any and all e-mails, private and public blogs, web pages, color photographs, and/or comments from any and all internet blogs or social networking website accounts ... for the period of February 14, 2006 to the present.” (Doc. 217-1 at 5). In addition, Defendant claims Plaintiff should be ordered to produce the hard drive to any computer to allow “downloading and searching.” (Doc. 217 at 2). Plaintiff's failure to serve a timely objection to these requests is troubling but the discovery request was so improper the Court will overlook the lack of a timely objection. The requests for production are absurdly overbroad. For example, it is hard to imagine how defense counsel concluded every color photograph taken by Plaintiff in the last five years could possibly be a proper request. Plaintiff need not comply with the requested discovery. Defendant is free to propound properly narrowed requests.
*2 The second discovery dispute involves a subpoena duces tecum to Dr. John L. Beghin. Dr. Beghin must produce reports of independent medical examinations conducted in 2008. Plaintiff must reimburse Dr. Beghin for the reasonable fees Dr. Beghin incurs in producing these documents. Dr. Beghin must produce his billing records in advance of his deposition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 221) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff need not comply with the discovery request regarding electronic discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Dr. Beghin must produce reports of independent medical examinations performed in 2008. Plaintiff shall reimburse the reasonable fees incurred by Dr. Beghin in doing so. Dr. Beghin must produce his billing records prior to his deposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to File Excess Pages (Doc. 243) is DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of April, 2011.