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.

City of Scranton v. Orr Wyatt Streetscapes

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 18, 2019

CITY OF SCRANTON, KANSAS, Plaintiff,
v.
ORR WYATT STREETSCAPES, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          TERESA J. JAMES U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 57). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and D. Kan. Rule 37.1, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order compelling Defendants to serve answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendants and to produce additional documents in response to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production to Defendants. Defendants have responded to the motion. As set forth below, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion.

         I. Relevant Background

         Plaintiff served the written discovery requests at issue on January 22, 2019.[1] On February 21, 2019, Defendants served a joint response to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production, which included objections to some requests, access to copies of certain responsive documents, and an agreement to supplement production with respect to two requests.[2] On March II, 2019, after having reviewed the produced documents, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to defense counsel setting forth alleged deficiencies and omissions.[3] The most glaring omission was Defendants' failure to serve answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories. Defendants did not respond to the letter, provide additional documents, or serve interrogatory answers, which prompted Plaintiff to timely file the instant motion. Defendants have responded to the motion, stating that on the date of their response they had conferred with Plaintiff's counsel regarding the motion and “agreed to provide answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and supplement their responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, to the extent they possess additional responsive documents, by April 15, 2019.”[4]

         As of today, Plaintiff “is not in receipt of the Interrogatory responses nor the requested documents sought in the Motion to Compel.”[5]

         The Court finds Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of D. Kan. Rule 37.2.

         Plaintiff requests in her motion that the Court order Defendants to provide answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendants (numbered 1 through 23) and to produce additional documents responsive to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production number 1 through 7.

         II. Summary of the Parties' Arguments

         Plaintiff's motion centers on Defendants' lack of responsiveness, which Defendants do not contest but committed to correct. Defendants have failed to do so.

         III. Whether the Discovery Sought is Relevant and Discoverable

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets out the general scope of discovery. As recently amended, it provides as follows:

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.[6]

         Considerations of both relevance and proportionality now govern the scope of discovery.[7] Relevance is still to be “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on” any party's claim or defense.[8]

         Information still “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”[9] The amendment deleted the “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” phrase, however, because it was often misused to define the scope of ...


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.