Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00634-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD PHILLIPS and *

DEDA PHILLIPS, *

 *

Plaintiffs, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action: 04-00634-CG-B

 *

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., *

et al., *

 *

Defendants. *

ORDER

This action came before the Court for a discovery hearing on

August 12, 2005, at which time, the undersigned heard oral argument

regarding the following pending discovery motions:

• Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Mandatory Disclosures

(Doc. 75), Defendants’ Response and Motion For

Protective Order (Doc. 85), Defendants’ Motion For

Leave To File Sur-Reply (Doc. 88) and Plaintiffs’

Request For Leave of Court to respond to Defendants’

motion for leave to file sur-reply (Doc. 94);

• Plaintiffs’ Response to this Court’s Show Cause Order

and Motion To Withdraw said Order (Doc. 70); 

• Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Defendants’ Responses to

Rule 30(b)(5) Document Requests (Doc. 77) and

Defendants’ Response and Motion For Protective Order

(Doc. 87); and 

• Defendants’ Motion To Compel and Request For Expedited

Ruling (Doc. 95).

After consideration of the parties’ arguments, both at the hearing

and in their respective briefs, the undersigned issues the following

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 100 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 2
2

written ruling, for the reasons detailed at the hearing, that:

1) Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Mandatory Disclosures

(Doc. 75) is DENIED;

2) Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order (Doc. 85) is MOOT;

3) Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File Sur-Reply (Doc. 88) and

Plaintiffs’ Request For Leave to respond to same (Doc. 94)

are DENIED;

4) Plaintiffs’ Response to Court’s Show Cause Order and Motion

To Withdraw (Doc. 70) is due to be DENIED;

5) Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Defendants’ Responses to

Production Requests (Doc. 77) is MOOT. Defendants are

ORDERED to produce a Verification from their Custodian of

Records which describes in detail, the manner in which

documents evidencing claims for injuries arising out of the

operation of air cooled all terrain vehicles (“ATV”) are

maintained. Additionally, the Custodian shall verify

whether there exists an index for such documents, and if so,

shall set forth in detail the circumstances under which, and

purposes for which, the index was developed. The

Verification shall be filed with the Court no later than

5:00 p.m. on August 26, 2005. 

6) Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order (Doc. 87) is DENIED;

7) Defendants’ Motion To Compel/Request for Expedited Ruling

(Doc. 95) is GRANTED in part. The parties are ORDERED to

notify the Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2005,

as to whether they have reached an agreement regarding the

testing of the subject ATV and boots at issue in this case.

If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Court

will enter an Order setting forth the conditions under which

the testing shall occur; and

8) It is further ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants’

Expert Disclosures is hereby extended to September 2, 2005.

DONE this 15th day of August 2005.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 100 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2