Black Hills Molding, Inc. v. Brandom Holdings, LLC
| Decision Date | 19 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIV. 12-5051 |
| Parties | BLACK HILLS MOLDING, INC., Plaintiff, v. BRANDOM HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
DEEM ITS ADMISSIONS
TIMELY
[DOCKET NOS. 26 & 33]
INTRODUCTION
This diversity action is before the court on plaintiff Black Hills Molding's complaint against defendant Brandom Holdings, LLC alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. See Docket No. 1-1. Pending is Brandom Holdings' motion to compel plaintiff to respond to certain discovery requests. See Docket No. 26. Plaintiff resists this motion and filed a separate motion requesting that this court deem plaintiff's responses as timely. See Docket No. 33. The Chief District Judge, the Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, referred these motions to this magistrate judge for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2006).
BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 13, 2012, plaintiff Black Hills Molding, Inc. ("Black Hills Molding"), a corporation incorporated in the State of South Dakota, served a complaint on Brandom Holdings, LLC ("Brandom"), a corporation incorporatedin the State of Texas, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. See Docket 1-1. The complaint was initially filed in state court for the State of South Dakota. Id. However, defendant Brandom removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota based on the Court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. See Docket 1; 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) (2006). As set forth below, the parties have become embroiled in a discovery dispute concerning the timeliness, sufficiency, and the appropriateness of court-ordered sanctions as it relates to Black Hills Molding's responses to Brandom's discovery requests.
On May 28, 2013, counsel for Brandom contacted counsel for Black Hills Molding requesting discovering of the six categories of documents pertinent to the present dispute, which Black Hills Molding stated it possessed in its January 18, 2013, initial disclosures. See Docket No. 28-4. On May 30, 2013, counsel for Brandom Holdings served on Black Hills Molding its first set of interrogatories, requests for production ("RFPs"), and requests for admission ("RFAs"). See Docket No. 28-1. Brandom's May 30, 2013 discovery requests consisted of ten interrogatories,1 fifteen RFPs, and nine RFAs. Id. Following Black Hills Molding's failure to respond to the discovery requests, Brandom Holding's local counsel requested the same via telephone on June 6 and 7, 2013, and in writing on June 7 and 13, 2013. Id.
On June 25, 2013, counsel for Brandom, by letter, requested that Black Hills Molding supplement its initial disclosures. See Doc. 28-4. Notably, Brandom's letter stated that it was "a follow-up to my voice mail and e-mail messages to you as of today regarding Plaintiff's failure to produce documents identified in Plaintiff's initial disclosures and my good faith attempt to resolve this dispute as required by local rule 37.1." Id. (emphasis added). In this letter, Brandom's counsel proposed delaying the deposition of Black Hills Molding's corporate representative until July 9-11, 2013, in an effort to allow Black Hills Molding adequate time to provide Brandom with the requested discovery in advance of the deposition. See id.
On June 26, 2013, Brandom's counsel served a Second Amended Notice of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition on Black Hills Molding, which was scheduled for July 11, 2013. See Docket 28-5. Brandom Holding's 30(b)(6) deposition was coupled with a subpoena duces tecum, instructing the corporate representative of Black Hills Molding to "bring with them to the deposition all documents (a) that they review between now and their deposition to prepare to testify on the foregoing subjects, or (b) that contain information responsive to the foregoing subjects." Id.
On June 28, 2013, counsel for Black Hills Molding requested that it be given until the close of business on July 2, 2013, a three-day extension,2 torespond to Brandom's May 30 discovery requests. See Docket No. 28-6. Brandom granted the extension, and, on July 2, 2013, Black Hills Molding provided Brandom with 534 pages of documents sent via email. See Docket No. 29; see also Docket No. 28-7.
However, it was not until July 3, 2013, one day after the expiration of the three-day extension, that Black Hills Molding served its responses to Brandom's May 30 discovery requests on Brandom. See Docket No. 28-7. Specifically, Black Hills Molding admitted to RFAs one, two, and four; denied RFAs three, five, six, seven, and eight with an explanation; and denied RFA nine without an explanation. See Docket No. 28-7.
With respect to the interrogatories, Black Hills Molding responded by referring Brandom to the entirety of its July 2 email disclosures3 on fourteen of the twenty-one total sub-questions posed. See Docket No. 28-7. Black Hills Molding's responses, with the exception of those offered in sub-question (a) of both interrogatory eight and nine, provide little—if any support—or context for the response given. See, e.g., Docket No. 28-7. Similarly, Black Hills Molding responded to every one of Brandom's RFPs by answering: "[s]ee BH Molding 1-534,"4 "[w]e are still looking for these,"5 "[t]hese will be provided when the invoices are prepaid,"6 or "[s]ee BH Molding 534."7 See Docket No. 28-7. Black Hills Molding's responses to Brandom's ten interrogatories were signed only byits counsel. See Docket No. 28-7. No agent of Black Hills Molding signed its responses to Brandom's interrogatories.
On July 11, 2013, pursuant to the second amended deposition notice, see Docket No. 28-5, Brandom began the deposition of David Mallams, the corporate representative of Black Hills Molding. Docket No. 28-8. However, Brandom suspended the deposition of David Mallams8 after only ninety minutes and refused to depose Greg Mallams. Id. Brandom, in its motion to compel and without objection from Black Hills Molding, asserted that Mr. David Mallams failed to bring the documents requested in the subpoena duces tecum. Id.
On July 16, 2013, following the failed July 11 deposition attempt, counsel for Brandom contacted Black Hills Molding via letter with a stated purpose of providing a "good-faith attempt to resolve this dispute as required by Local Rule 37.1." Docket No. 28-8. In this letter, Brandom proposed a three-step process whereby Black Hills Molding would supplement its interrogatory responses and document production efforts by July 30, 2013, the suspended deposition of Black Hills Molding's corporate representatives would be reconvened by prior to August 31, 2013, and both Black Hills Molding and Brandom would file an agreed upon motion to extend the court's discovery motion filing deadline from July 31, 2013 to September 30, 2013. See id.
Brandom's July 16 letter to Black Hills Molding was Brandom's final attempt to resolve the discovery dispute without court intervention. Id. To that end, Brandom informed Black Hills Molding that unless it agreed to the proposed terms by July 18, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Brandom would file a motion to compel discovery from Black Hills Molding. Id.
On July 18, 2013, Black Hills Molding responded to Brandom's July 16 letter. Black Hills Molding's response was limited to the six deficiencies Brandom alleged regarding its initial disclosures. Notably, Black Hills Molding claimed that "some" of its disclosed documents were responsive both as initial disclosures and as responses to specific discovery requests. See Docket No. 28-9. In response to Brandom's first alleged initial disclosure deficiency, Black Hills Molding stated that the 534 pages of emails, which it provided to Brandom via email on July 2, 2013, containing correspondence between Black Hills Molding and either Brandom Holdings, LLC or Brandom Southwest, LP,9 were dual purposed and should be considered both as part of Black Hills Molding's initial disclosures and as responsive to Brandom's specific requests for documents. Id.
In response to Brandom's second alleged initial disclosure deficiency, Black Hills Molding stated that the aforementioned 534 pages of emails "also reflect Holdings and Southwest's purchase of cabinetry components." Id. In response to Brandom's third alleged initial disclosure deficiency, Black HillsMolding provided new invoices from Black Hills Molding to either Brandom Holdings, LLC or Brandom Southwest, LP. Id. (referencing "BH Moldings 542 through 560"). Black Hills Molding also noted "that Tammy's computer contained some of the invoices but those were deleted prior to this litigation beginning." Id. Additionally, Black Hills Molding provided Brandom with a copy of the "Non-circumvention & Sales Agreement." Id.
On July 25, 2013, Brandom filed a motion compelling Black Hills Molding to respond fully and completely to its discovery requests, to make its corporate representative available to be deposed at a mutually agreeable time and location, and seeking the reasonable attorney's fees it incurred in filing its motion to compel. See Docket No. 26. Brandom also sought an order of the court deeming its RFAs to be admitted by Black Hills Molding because those responses were one day late. Id. Shortly thereafter, on August 14, 2013, Black Hills Molding filed a motion resisting Brandom's motion to compel discovery and moving the court to deem its July 3, 2013, responses to the defendant's RFAs as timely. See Docket No. 33.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), a party's "evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4). A party requesting the discovery is entitled to move for a motion compelling disclosure after havingmade a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by first...
To continue reading
Request your trial