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.

Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. v. Flint

United States District Court, District of Kansas

February 7, 2014

HARLEY DAVIDSON CREDIT CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
HOWARD S. FLINT JR., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Teresa J. James United States Magistrate Judge.

The Court has before it the following five motions:

1. Defendants Howard S. Flint Jr. and Cyprus Mediterranean Amalgamated, LLC’s Motion for a Short Extension of the Trial and Discovery Response Deadlines (ECF No. 42), filed on August 27, 2013;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions or to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (ECF No. 52), filed on December 9, 2013;
3. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Sanctions or to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (ECF No. 58), filed on December 16, 2013;
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions (ECF No. 65), filed on January 9, 2014; and
5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Discovery End-Date for a Period of 45 Days until March 1, 2014 (ECF No. 70), filed on January 15, 2014.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Motion for a Short Extension of the Trial and Discovery Response Deadlines (ECF No. 42) is moot, the Motion for Sanctions or to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (ECF Nos. 52) is moot, the Amended Motion for Sanctions or to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (ECF No. 58) should be granted in part and denied in part, the Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions (ECF No. 65) should be denied without prejudice, and the Motion for Extension of Discovery End-Date for a Period of 45 Days until March 1, 2014 (ECF No. 70) should be granted.

I. Motion for a Short Extension of the Trial and Discovery Response Deadlines (ECF No. 42)

In their Response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel to Withdraw Arbitration Claim, Flint Jr. and Cyprus Mediterranean Amalgamated, LLC (“CMA”) also moved for a short extension of the trial and discovery response deadlines, until the Court could resolve their pending Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff opposed the motion, which remains unresolved. Upon review, the Court concludes that the motion is moot.

Flint Jr. and CMA requested a “very short extension” and stated that they “ha[d] not and w[ould] not serve discovery requests on any party while awaiting the Court’s decision.” The discovery at issue, Plaintiff’s First Sets of Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, were served on Flint Jr. and CMA on June 24, 2013. Amended versions of the discovery requests were then served to Flint Jr. and CMA on June 27, 2013, with responses remaining due by July 24, 2013. On July 18, 2013, Plaintiff consented to a thirty-day extension of the deadline to respond, to August 29, 2013. The motion at issue (ECF No. 42) was filed on August 27, 2013, prior to the deadline to respond as extended by consent.

Thereafter, on October 31, 2013, Plaintiff moved to extend the deadline to complete discovery to a date 60 days after the Court ruled on the pending motion to compel arbitration, with the consent of all parties.[1] This subsequent motion basically requested the same relief as the instant motion. The Court denied the extension as requested and instead granted an extension of the deadline to complete discovery on factual issues to December 27, 2013. On December 5, 2013, with the consent of all parties, Flint Jr. and CMA moved for a second extension of the factual discovery deadline to January 15, 2013, which the Court granted. Thereafter, on December 16, 2013, Flint Jr. and CMA served discovery requests on Plaintiff.[2] Plaintiff served its responses to those discovery requests on January 15, 2014.[3]

The Court finds that Flint Jr. and CMA’s request for an extension of the discovery response deadline is moot as a result of the subsequent motions for, and orders granting, extensions of the deadline to complete discovery on all factual issues. These subsequent motions were made with the consent of all parties, and specifically contemplated the pending discovery requests at issue. Further, the first subsequent motion requested basically the same relief as the instant motion. And further, Flint Jr. and CMA have since served their own discovery requests on Plaintiff. ...


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.