United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Northern Division
ALAN M. DISCIULLO, MARY JODI SCIULLO, Plaintiffs,
GRIGGS & CO. HOMES, INC.; DANIEL KEN GRIGGS; and DEBORA R. GRIGGS, Defendants.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court upon a host of motions addressed below, with benefit of telephonic hearing this date.
On January 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed untimely a motion to compel (DE 45), in contravention of the court's case management order. Upon notice of this error, plaintiffs sought on January 19, 2015, to withdraw the motion. (DE 47). On January 26, 2015, the court set the discovery dispute for conference by telephone on February 4, 2015, in accordance with the case management order.
One day later, on January 27, 2015, defendants filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery and move to amend pleadings, (DE 49), to which defendants responded in opposition. (DE 50).
By way of further background, pursuant to the case management order entered August 4, 2014, all discovery is to be commenced or served in time to be completed by February 15, 2015, and any motion to amend was due well over four months ago, by September 15, 2014. All potentially dispositive motions are due to be filed by March 15, 2015.
A. Motion to Compel (DE 45)
The court started the proceeding today with reference to the motion to compel, inquiring of the parties if the disputed issues now stand resolved. They do not. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to withdraw, (DE 47), and proceeds to consider the merits of the motion with benefit of defendants' oral arguments in opposition thereto
After hearing further, the court ordered the deposition of Debora R. Griggs to go forward at the Raleigh offices of plaintiffs' counsel on Monday, March 9, 2015. That will be followed by the depositions of plaintiffs, which may extend into the following day. Confirmation was received as to availability of plaintiffs during pendency of the conference and hearing. Issues concerning depositions now are decided, obviating in this part need to address further issues concerning depositions raised on motion to compel.
2. Written Discovery
Plaintiffs were heard to complain about defendants' method of responding to Interrogatory nos. 14 and 15, with reliance on approximately 5, 000 documents produced through two separate productions in answer, and then required to be organized by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have by now applied a computer program to sort the documents, it was reported. Where it appears issues concerning Interrogatory nos. 14 and 15 are resolved, this part of the motion also is dismissed as moot.
Request for Production nos. 37, 41, 42, and 43 also are at issue. Defendants have objected to each request, variously seeking federal and state tax returns for 2007 to 2013 (no. 37); bank statements for July 2012 through August 2013, for any account in which any portion of any payment made by plaintiffs was deposited (no. 41); and electronic copies of all computer-based bookkeeping files and paper copies of all ...