Jannx Med. Sys. Inc v. The Methodist Hosp.S Inc, CAUSE NO.: 2:08-CV-286-PRC
| Decision Date | 17 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 2:08-CV-286-PRC |
| Parties | JANNX MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. PROPOCO INC. d/b/a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, and CROTHALL HEALTHCARE, INC., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion of Methodist Hospitals, Inc. and Crothall Healthcare, Inc. for Expedited Order to Compel Discovery by Jannx Medical Systems [DE 66], filed by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff The Methodist Hospitals, Inc., and Third-Party Defendants Propoco, Inc., ("Defendants") on October 4, 2010, and a Motion for Protective Order [DE 70], filed by Plaintiff Jannx Medical Systems, Inc., on October 21, 2010. Both Motions have been fully briefed.
Upon initial review of the instant Motion, the Court finds that neither Defendants nor Plaintiff included in their Motions a certification as required by Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1. Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1, a motion to compel or motion for a protective order N.D. Ind. L.R. 37.1(b). Furthermore, Local Rule 37.1(c) requires that the certification "be made in a separate document filed contemporaneously with the motion" and advises the parties that a court may deny any motion under Local Rule 37.1 "if the required certification is not filed." N.D. Ind. L.R. 37.1(c).
However, Defendants attached copies of two September 28, 2010 letters, one from counsel for Crothall and one from Counsel for Methodist, as part of an exhibit to their Motion to compel. The letters and other correspondence in the exhibit indicate that the Defendants made several attempts to obtain the request documents and resolve discovery concerns without court intervention. The letters further provide that if the parties were unable to successfully address the Defendants' discovery concerns in a telephone conference set for September 29, 2010, Defendants would seek the court's intervention. The Court finds that the September 28, 2010 letters effectively comply with the purpose of Rule 37(a) and Local Rule 37.1-to resolve the discovery dispute without the Court's intervention. As a result, the Court will not deny Defendants' Motion to Compel for the sole reason that they failed to file a separate Rule 37 certification.
In further support of this decision, Plaintiff failed to raise the certification issue in its response and failed to file a separate Rule 37 certification in its Motion for Protective Order. Although Plaintiff failed to include any exhibits or correspondence related to its attempt to resolve the need for a protective order without the Court's intervention, the correspondence attached to Defendants' Motion to Compel demonstrates that the parties did make this attempt. The Court finds that the parties have somewhat complied with the spirit of Rule 37 and Local Rule 37.1 and their Motions will not be denied for the sole reason that they failed to file a separate Rule 37 certification.
In the instant Motion to Compel, Defendants ask the Court to order Plaintiff to provide complete responses to each of Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and to produce documents responsive to each of Defendants' First Requests for Production of Documents in reasonable electronic form.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery "regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Nevertheless, the Federal Rules require a court to
limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Rule 37(a) allows a party to move for an order compelling discovery, including an order compelling an answer or inspection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The Court has broad discretion when deciding whether to compel discovery. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002) (). The Court addresses each of Defendants' discovery requests in turn.
(1) Interrogatory Responses
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, a party may serve interrogatories on any other party relating to any matter that "may be inquired into under Rule 26(b)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Each of these interrogatories "must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).
Defendants assert that Plaintiff's responses to a number of interrogatories were boilerplate answers that failed to identify specific documents or state whether any responsive documents were produced. For example, Crothall's Interrogatory 12 requests information about Plaintiff's theory of damages, in particular: Defs. Br. Ex. 3 Response No. 12. Plaintiff responded with a general objection and a direction to "see those responsive, non-privileged and non-confidential business documents produced herewith." Id. No specific documents were identified and there was no statement regarding whether any responsive documents had been produced. The same boilerplate responses, failing to identify any specific documents or state whether responsive documents are being produced, apply to Crothall's Interrogatories 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 14 and Methodist's Interrogatories 7, 11, and 12.
In relevant part, Rule 33(d) provides that
If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records... and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by:
(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and
(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(emphasis added). To utilize this Rule, the information that the Defendants are requesting must actually be obtainable from the documents. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 320, 325 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Further, the burden of ascertaining the information must be substantially equivalent and there must be sufficiently detailed specification of the records to permit the interrogating party to find the document containing the requested information. "These are not optional requirements." Id. Referring to documents in general, without specifying particular documents, is "an abuse of the option." Id. at 326.
Therefore, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Compel to the extent that Defendants request that Plaintiff fully respond to Crothall's Interrogatories 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 14 and Methodist's Interrogatories 7, 11, and 12 in accordance with Rule 33, including both documents and sworn responses as applicable.
(2) Production of Documents in Reasonable Electronic Form
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 relating to electronically stored information,
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to produce electronically stored information in accordance with Rule 34. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to produce a number of responsive documents in any form. For example, Plaintiff has not produced a number of reports available through its database system nor copies of any contracts with third-party service providers who performed work for Methodist. To the extent that there are responsive documents that have not already been objected to and have not been produced, Plaintiff is ordered to produce these documents.
In addition to failing to produce a number of the responsive documents in any form, Defendants argue that electronically-stored information Plaintiff has produced does not comply with Rule 34 in that it has not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial