Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Trans-West, Inc. v. Southwest Luxury Coach Sales, LLC
United States District Court, D. Colorado
April 28, 2016
TRANS-WEST, INC., a Colorado corporation d/b/a Transwest Truck Trailer RV, Plaintiff,
SOUTHWEST LUXURY COACH SALES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, & SCOTT BUCHANAN, an individual, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER DOCKETS NOS. 46, 48, 55, & 64
Michael J. Watanabe Magistrate Judge
It is hereby ORDERED that:
• Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
• Interrogatory 1: Defendants’ motion is denied as to this interrogatory. The Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d) designation in Plaintiff’s supplemental response, in combination with the deal jackets and the spreadsheets, appears to be a full and fair response.
• Interrogatory 5 & Interrogatory 14: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested information and documents as to the specific vehicles at issue in this lawsuit. Past that, the Court finds that Defendants’ theory of relevancy is too attenuated to be proportional to the needs of the case.
• Interrogatory 7: As to the sales and inventory records from SalesForce, Karmak, and Automotive Arts (records that have already been provided in the form of Excel spreadsheets), Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce or allow access to the records in native formats, with complete metadata and with the capacity to produce and download reports to a removable storage drive. Plaintiff may do so through a dummy account with limited permissions, provided that the limitations are agreed upon by counsel beforehand. All such records shall be deemed “Confidential Information” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 35) in this case.
• Interrogatory 11: Defendants’ motion is denied as to this interrogatory. The responses appear full and fair in light of Plaintiff’s currently claimed damages. The Court notes that Plaintiff has almost certainly made binding judicial admissions that would preclude it from re-asserting its abandoned damages theories.
• Interrogatory 12: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested information and documents, insofar as the documents have been compiled for use in the related state-court litigation. The Court notes, further, that Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to supplement this response, as the related state-court litigation progresses.
• Interrogatory 15: Defendants’ motion is denied as to this interrogatory. Defendants offer no explanation as to why the Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d) designation in Plaintiff’s response is insufficient.
• Interrogatory 17: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested information and documents. The collateral source doctrine has no bearing on the matter.
• Request for Production 3: Defendants’ motion is denied insofar as this appears moot in light of Plaintiff’s fifth supplemental disclosure. Defendants may renew the issue if the Court is mistaken.
• Request for Production 7: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce Mullins’s laptop and other devices for inspection by Defendants. In advance of the production, the parties shall stipulate to a process for imaging/copying, shall stipulate to a clawback agreement for privileged matters, and shall stipulate to a process for designating proprietary information as “attorneys eyes only.” The parties shall file this stipulation with Court as a “Supplemental Stipulated Protective Order” on or before May 20, 2016. Defendants shall pay the cost of any imaging/copying.
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Docket No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
• The motion is GRANTED insofar as discovery into the “California Transactions” is hereby BARRED under Rule 26(c)(1)(D). Defendants have failed ...
Buy This Entire Record For