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.

Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corp.

January 22, 2010

TIMOTHY CRAYTON PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROCHESTER MEDICAL CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION AND JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTOR, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL IN PART (Document 78)

I. Introduction

On November 30, 2009, Defendant, Rochester Medical Corporation ("Defendant" or "ROCM") filed a Motion to Compel. Plaintiff filed an opposition on ("Plaintiff") on January 6, 2010. (Doc. 94). Defendant filed a Reply on January 8, 2010. (Doc. 95). Upon a review of all of the pleadings, Defendant's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART.

II. Relevant Background

Plaintiff is a wheelchair paralytic who is an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison. The matter arises from Plaintiff's allegations that he was injured when he used an Ultraflex Silicone Self-Adhering Male External Catheter ("Ultraflex Catheter") manufactured by Defendant. In an Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2008, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability, fraudulent misrepresentations, and breach of implied warranty of fitness. (Doc. 34).

A scheduling conference was held on March 27, 2009. (Doc. 50). On March 30, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring that non-expert discovery be completed no later than September 1, 2009. (Doc. 55). Pursuant to Defendant's ex parte request, on September 14, 2009, the Court issued an order extending the non-expert discovery deadline for Defendant until September 20, 2009. (Docs. 59, 62). On September 23, 2009, the Court also extended Plaintiff's non-expert discovery deadline until September 25, 2009. (Doc. 61, 64).

On December 9, 2009, after Defendant's filed the instant motion, Plaintiff filed a request to toll the dates in the scheduling conference order, as well as to extend the filing deadline for various pre-trial motions because he was having difficulties obtaining his typewriter from prison officials. (Doc. 89). The Court denied Plaintiff's request on the basis that the request was over broad and that Plaintiff did not establish good cause for the request. Notwithstanding, the Court did extend Plaintiff's deadline for filing an opposition to the instant motion from December 18, 2009, until December 30, 2009. (Doc. 91).

III. Defendant's Motion to Compel

Defendant's motion seeks to compel discovery responses to Request for Production of Document Request ("POD") Numbers 1 and 4.*fn1 POD No. 1 requested that Plaintiff produce the Ultraflex catheter that allegedly caused his injuries. POD No. 4 requested any all packaging and usage instructions that accompanied the catheter.

IV. Discussion

A. The Scope of Discovery

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, non privileged, that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need ...


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.