Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
May 24, 2018, Decided; May 24, 2018, Filed
Case No. 15-4927-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter [*3] comes before the court upon Defendant's Motion for Order Compelling Additional Discovery (ECF No. 361). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The parties were scheduled to begin a two-week jury trial on March 6, 2018, before Judge Crabtree when defendant discovered in late February that plaintiffs had not previously produced documents appearing on their final exhibit list. Judge Crabtree vacated the trial setting and referred this case back to the undersigned for management of any additional discovery. The undersigned has conducted conference calls with the parties on March 9, 2018, and on March 21, 2018. Among other things, the court granted leave for defendant to take plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition, limiting the scope to how plaintiffs identified and collected documents for review and production.1 Defendant filed a notice of plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on March 16, 2018. Plaintiffs produced two corporate representatives for deposition on March 23, 2018, Jayne Rarrick and Steven Loughlin. Ms. Rarrick was an employee of Plaintiff Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Imaging Partners, Inc. (RNMIP) from 1998 through 2015 [*4] and is now the only remaining RNMIP employee in Topeka, Kansas. Mr. Loughlin is Plaintiff Radiologix, Inc.'s information systems director of infrastructure and security. During the depositions, the witnesses were unable to answer certain questions. Defendant contends that the witnesses were unprepared and seeks to reopen the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiffs contend that defendant's deposition notice failed to state the topics with reasonable particularity but that the witnesses were prepared able to answer questions relevant to the topics identified in the notice. Defendant also argues that the depositions have raised new questions about whether plaintiffs took appropriate steps to implement a litigation hold, and defendant seeks additional discovery on this issue.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86964 *; 2018 WL 2364662
RADIOLOGIX, INC., and RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE IMAGING PARTNERS, Plaintiffs, v. RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, LLC, Defendant.
Prior History: Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology & Nuclear Med., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1096 (D. Kan., Jan. 6, 2016)
deposition, documents, plaintiffs', notice, interrogatories, questions, discovery, e-mail, deponent, parties, designated, reasonable particularity, deposition notice, supplemental, preparation, undersigned, designee, steps, witnesses, reopen