UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2005
DONALD F. CHIARIELLO, PLAINTIFF(S),
I.N.G. GROUPE NV, DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Having reviewed the papers filed by both sides, I find that there is no need for oral argument. I also find that plaintiff's requests are generally over broad and often not relevant to the claims or defenses presented in this lawsuit. Plaintiff has not alleged a bad faith claim against defendant, if he can, and it is not permissible to take discovery in this lawsuit for the purpose of preparing for another lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee's notes (2000 amend.). Ordinarily, I would deny plaintiff's motion since I do not rewrite a party's discovery requests. However, to expedite the completion of discovery in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion To Compel, as amended by his reply, is GRANTED or DENIED as follows:
1. GRANTED as to requests number 5 and 9 to the extent they seek documents with respect to the development of the application form, the processing of plaintiff's application, the issuance of his policy, his claim for the loss of the boat, the decision to deny his claim, and defendant's affirmative defense and counterclaims.
2. GRANTED as to requests number 1b, c, & d, to the extent that the requests are limited to the claim plaintiff makes in this lawsuit.
3. DENIED as to requests number 1a, e, f & g as being over broad or being cumulative to 1b, c & d.
4. GRANTED as to 1h to the extent that it seeks the folders of files that are to be produced pursuant to this Order.
5. DENIED as to 1i, which seems cumulative of the other requests in that plaintiff is entitled to the documents either electronically or as hard copy but not both unless defendant keeps them both electronically and hard copy.
6. GRANTED as to 1j to the extent that it seeks images of the ATTU and documents which relate to the issue of whether plaintiff sailed without a crew.
7. DENIED as to request no. 10.
8. GRANTED as to request no. 11.
9. With respect to interrogatory no. 13, defendant has 10 days to provide further information if it wishes. If not, defendant will be precluded from producing further information at trial with respect to these three affirmative defenses.
10. DENIED with respect to interrogatory no. 17. Whether the answer is incorrect is a legal conclusion.
All documents are to be produced within 20 days. To the extent that this Order encompasses documents as to which defendant asserts the attorney-client privilege, such documents need not be produced but a privilege log pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5) must be produced within 20 days.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.