The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [Doc. No. 57];
(2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND LENGTH OF DEPOSITION; [Doc. No. 68]
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER TO POSTPONE DEPOSITION [Doc. No. 75]; and
(4) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE 19 DEPOSITIONS [Doc. No. 78].
George Brooks and Brooks Industries, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed their third motion to compel Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc. (MAD), Gregg Motsenbocker and Skip Motsenbocker (collectively, Defendants) to provide responses to certain requests for production (RFPs) and interrogatories. [Doc. No. 57.] Plaintiffs also request sanctions. Defendants oppose, arguing that they already responded to the requested discovery. Plaintiffs filed a reply. The Court did not hold oral argument on the April 24, 2008 hearing date and took the matter under submission.
On April 24, 2008, Defendants filed an ex parte application to file a sur-reply to Plaintiffs' reply brief. [Doc. No. 70.] The Court granted the request and accepted the sur-reply. On April 28, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to file a rebuttal to the sur-reply. [Doc. No. 73.] The Court accepted the rebuttal and ordered that no other briefs be filed in support of or in opposition to the motion to compel.
Meanwhile, on April 23, Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the length of time to take the deposition of Gregg Motsenbocker. [Doc. No. 68.] Plaintiffs simultaneously filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time for the Court to hear the Motsenbocker deposition motion. The Court granted that request, ordered an opposition, and stated it would take the matter under submission without allowing a reply brief or holding oral argument. On April 30 Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. Defendants also filed a separate ex parte application for a protective order to postpone the deposition of Skip Motsenbocker noticed for May 6, 2008. [Doc. No. 75.] Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that ex parte application on May 2, 2008.
Finally, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to take more than 10 depositions. [Doc. No. 78.] They also filed an ex parte application request for an order shortening time. The Court granted that request. Defendants filed their opposition on May 7, 2008.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to compel and DENIES without prejudice their request for sanctions, DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to extend the length of the deposition, GRANTS Defendants' ex parte application for a protective order and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for leave to take 19 depositions.
Previous Discovery Orders
In April 2007, Plaintiffs sued Defendants in this Court for breach of contract, fraud and related claims based on the parties' alleged oral agreement regarding a liquid remover used for refinishing surfaces covered by paint and paint-like coverings. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached the contract by not paying commissions on sales of the liquid remover.
After the parties exchanged initial disclosures, Plaintiffs moved to compel Defendants to provide supplemental initial disclosures. On October 29, 2007 this Court denied that request in part, but ordered Defendants to disclose any ...