Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baronius Press, Ltd. v. Saint Benedict Press, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

February 26, 2019

BARONIUS PRESS, LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
SAINT BENEDICT PRESS, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          David C. Keesler United States Magistrate Judge

         THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT regarding the parties' request on February 18, 2019 - four (4) days before the discovery deadline - for a telephone conference pursuant to the “Amended Case Management Order” (Document No. 88, pp. 3-4). The undersigned held a telephone conference discussing the status of the case and discovery disputes on February 25, 2019. After careful consideration of the record of the case, written submissions by each side, and the parties' arguments during the telephone conference, the undersigned makes findings and determinations below pursuant to the “Amended Case Management Order” (Document No. 88, p. 4) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction. See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947).

         DISCUSSION

         First, the undersigned observes that on January 18, 2019, the discovery deadline in this case was extended to February 22, 2019. (Document No. 102). On February 7, 2019, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulation…” (Document No. 103) agreeing to extend the discovery completion deadline to complete depositions and mediation.

         As noted during the telephone conference, the undersigned is concerned in this case that the scope and expense of discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). In addition, the undersigned notes that some of the issues raised here are not actual “discovery disputes” that the process set forth in the “Amended Case Management Order” is designed to address, and/or the issues are not timely raised in accordance with the “Amended Case Management Order.” See (Document No. 88, pp. 3-4). The parties are required to seek a telephone conference within fourteen (14) days of a discovery dispute arising. “This time limitation may only be extended with leave of Court for good cause shown, and failure to timely submit to this procedure will result in the objection being deemed waived.” (Document No. 88, p. 4, n.2). Based on all the circumstances of this case, however, the undersigned provides the following guidance and determinations.

         1. Tom Healy

         Defendant requests that the Court require Plaintiff to make Tom Healy available for a deposition and to extend the discovery period for the limited purpose of such deposition. Although Defendant first initiated requests to depose Tom Healy (“Healy”) over a year ago, Defendant again re-raised this request on or about February 5, 2019, after receiving additional discovery responses in late January 2019. The relationship between Plaintiff and Healy remains unclear to the Court. It appears he has been reported to be a representative of Plaintiff, an employee/manager, and/or a volunteer. At best, Plaintiff has not been as precise and forthcoming about its relationship with Tom Healy, and his availability in this lawsuit, as the Court would have preferred.

         The undersigned is persuaded that Healy's deposition testimony is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case and that he should appear for a deposition as soon as possible. Plaintiff is directed to provide Defendant with complete contact information for Healy and to provide all reasonable assistance to locate and arrange for Tom Healy to appear for a deposition in this matter. Discovery shall remain open for the purpose of this deposition, only, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties or ordered by the Court.

         2. Plaintiff's 2018-2019 Communication with Publishers and Internal Communications

         Defendant also seeks the production of 2018-2019 communications with other publishers, including a French publisher, from whom Plaintiff claims to have recently obtained rights to eight (8) books at issue in this case. Plaintiff suggests that it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.