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.

Cadence Education, LLC v. Vore

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 26, 2018

CADENCE EDUCATION, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
J. BRANDON VORE, SARAH VORE, and FHD HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER MEMORIALIZING RULINGS FROM JUNE 25, 2018 MOTION HEARING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

          Teresa J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge

         On June 25, 2018, the Court held an in-person motion hearing and pretrial conference in this case with the parties. Plaintiff appeared through counsel, Laura Sixkiller and Sean Colligan. Defendants appeared through counsel, Greg Spies, Angela Angotti, and Adam Gasper. This order memorializes the oral discovery rulings made during the motion hearing.[1]

         1. Defendants' Motion to Overrule Objections and to Compel Supplemental Responses (ECF No. 130)

         For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

         a) Defendants' Second RFAs 25, 26, 32, 36, and 37

         Plaintiff's general objections to Defendants' Second Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) 25, 26, 32, 36, and 37 are overruled. Consistent with the authorities cited in Defendants' motion, namely Barcus v. Phoenix Ins. Co.[2] Plaintiff's general objections are improper and worthless in this district. Plaintiff shall serve amended non-conditional responses to these RFAs.

         b) Defendants' Second RFAs 34, 35, 39, and 40-43

         Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' Second RFAs 34, 35, 39, and 40-43 are overruled as improper conditional objections, i.e., a laundry list of objections with denials subject to those objections. Plaintiff's objections to these RFAs are also improper to the extent they assert that the requests for admission turn on legal issues or call for legal conclusions. Such objections are contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(5). In addition, to the extent Plaintiff's responses assert attorney-client privilege concerns, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's responses and finds the RFAs do not raise requests for attorney-client privileged communications to which there could be a valid objection asserted on that basis. Plaintiff shall serve amended non-conditional responses to these RFAs.

         Counsel for the parties shall confer and agree upon a common dictionary-based definition of the term “occupy” or any derivative of “occupy” (e.g., “occupied, ” “occupies”) just for purposes of responding to their mutual discovery responses that contain those terms. The parties shall be consistent and respond to discovery requests uniformly using the agreed-upon definition of the term “occupy.” The parties may add a disclaimer to the “occupy” definition used in their discovery responses to make clear that the definition is adopted pursuant to this ruling by the Court and without prejudice to any argument the parties may raise during summary judgment briefing and/or trial regarding the definition of “occupy” that should apply.

         c) Defendants' Fourth RFPs 26-28 (RSM McGladrey documents)

         Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' Requests for Production (“RFPs”) 26-28 are overruled. The Court finds there is at least marginal relevance to the documents being requested and overrules the objections asserted. Plaintiff shall supplement its responses to Requests for Production 26-28 and produce any responsive documents.

         d) Supplemental Response to Defendants' First RFAs 7 and 8 (footage occupied by Plaintiff)

         Plaintiff's responses to RFAs 7 and 8 are improper responses based upon conditional objections. Plaintiff's original response was a conditional objection and it still is when “subject to these objections” is added to the response. Plaintiff's objections to RFAs 7 and 8 are overruled, and Plaintiff shall respond with proper admissions and/or denials based upon the definition of “occupies” that counsel agree upon.

         e) Supplemental Responses to Defendants' November ...


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.