United States District Court, D. Kansas
ORDER MEMORIALIZING RULINGS FROM JUNE 25, 2018 MOTION
HEARING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge
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
Defendants' Motion to Overrule Objections and to Compel
Supplemental Responses (ECF No. 130)
reasons stated on the record at the hearing, Defendants'
motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
Defendants' Second RFAs 25, 26, 32, 36, and 37
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. Plaintiff's general objections are
improper and worthless in this district. Plaintiff shall
serve amended non-conditional responses to these RFAs.
Defendants' Second RFAs 34, 35, 39, and 40-43
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.
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.
Defendants' Fourth RFPs 26-28 (RSM McGladrey
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.
Supplemental Response to Defendants' First RFAs 7 and 8
(footage occupied by Plaintiff)
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.
Supplemental Responses to Defendants' November ...