Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-01192/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-01192-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

DWBI INVESTMENTS, LLC PLAINTIFF/ 

COUNTER-DEFENDANT 

v. No. 4:23-cv-1192-DPM 

INTERNATIONAL FOOD 

GROUP, L.L.C. 

v. 

DEFENDANT 

SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C. DEFENDANT/ 

COUNTER-CLAIMANT/ 

CROSS-CLAIMANT 

v. 

TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON SALES 

AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.; and 

TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. 

v. 

DEFENDANTS/ 

CROSS-DEFENDANTS/ 

CROSS-CLAIMANTS 

DAVID DENNIS; DENNIS FOOD 

GROUP, LLC; LEPHIEW GIN COMP ANY, 

INC.; LEPHIEW DENNINGTON; 

BENJAMIN MCCORKLE; BEACON 

LEGAL GROUP, P.L.L.C.; TIMOTHY 

DUDLEY; RICKEY HICKS; and GARY, 

WILLIAMS, PARENTI, WATSON, GARY 

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 118 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 3
& GILLESPIE, P.L.L.C. 

ORDER 

DEFENDANTS/ 

CROSS-DEFENDANTS 

DWBI has filed two one-sided joint reports of discovery disputes. 

Doc. 115 & 116. DWBI complains about lack of cooperation from the 

Gary firm and Hicks. 

First, the Gary firm objected to DWBI' s discovery requests, but the 

Clerk of Court inadvertently docketed the objections as a pleading. 

Doc. 108. This discovery was sent some weeks ago. The Court directs 

the Clerk to re-title Doc. 108 as: "Responses and Objection to Plaintiff's 

Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, by Willie 

Gary." DWBI doesn't address the Gary firm's objections in its 

discovery report. Those objections look generic to the Court. For 

good cause, the Court directs the Gary firm to provide verified 

responses, supplemented if necessary, and any specific objections by 

30 September 2024. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). 

DWBI also propounded a set of requests for admission, says the 

Gary firm hasn't responded to them, and requests that they all be 

deemed admitted. That result is too harsh-in essence, it asks for the 

Court to hold that the Gary firm has conceded the case. If, however, 

the Gary firm doesn't respond to the requests by 30 September 2024, 

they will be deemed admitted. The Gary firm must answer or object 

to the requests for admission with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). 

-2-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 118 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 3
The Gary firm must also file a status report by September 30th reflecting 

that it has responded to all the discovery. 

Second, DWBI also filed a report about Hicks. Hicks has 

promised responses to DWBI' s discovery but not provided them. 

Doc. 116 at 16. Likewise, he has not responded to potentially nuclear 

requests for admission. For good cause, the Court directs Hicks to 

provide complete and verified responses, and any specific objections, 

to DWBI' s interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for 

admission by 30 September 2024. If Hicks does not respond to DWBI' s 

requests for admission by that date, they will also be deemed admitted. 

Hicks must also file a status report by September 30th reflecting that he 

has responded to DWBI' s discovery requests. 

So Ordered. 

v 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 118 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 3