Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00027/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00027-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION No. 06-00027-BH-B

 *

THE MOBILE COUNTY COMMISSION, *

et al., *

 *

Defendants. *

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Defendants Speaks &

Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. and William G. Luker’s Motion

for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Supplement its Response to

Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

Production of Documents(Doc. 46) and Defendants’ Motion for

Plaintiff’s Counsel to Disclose Whether He Intends to Testify at

Trial. (Doc. 67). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel the Mobile County Commission to respond to

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of

Documents. (Doc. 65). 

Turning first to Defendants Speaks & Associates Consulting

Engineers, Inc. and William G. Luker’s Motion for Order Compelling

Plaintiff to Supplement its Response to Defendants’ Second Set of

Interrogatories and Requests for Production, the undersigned

observes that the scope of discovery is governed by Rule 26 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits the discovery of any

Case 1:06-cv-00027-BH-B Document 79 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 5
2

non-privileged material “relevant to the claim or defense of any

party” and relevant information need not be admissible at trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence. Rule 26 (b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. While

relevance for the purposes of discovery is defined broadly, the

right to discovery is not unlimited and does have “ultimate and

necessary boundaries”. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 67 S.

Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).

Defendants assert that Plaintiff provided inadequate responses

to Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 5, and Production Requests Numbers

1, 2, 3, and 4. Interrogatory No. 4 and Production Request No. 3

seek information regarding any money, within the last ten (10)

years, which Plaintiff has provided to George B. Hardee, and a copy

of all documents, correspondence, etc., that in any way relate to

money provided to George B. Hardee. In its response, Plaintiff

objects to the requests on the grounds that they are overly broad,

unduly burdensome and seek information not relevant to the case.

Plaintiff also responds that beginning in approximately January

2002, up through the current date, the company made cash advances

to Hardee Construction totaling $300,000.00 and paid claims and

incurred expenses on bonded Hardee projects in the amount of

approximately $5,905,187.74. Plaintiff also objected to producing

records related to money provided to George B. Hardee, and asserts

that the requested material is not relevant and the requests are

overly broad. In this case, RLI, which acted as the surety for

Case 1:06-cv-00027-BH-B Document 79 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 5
3

George B. Hardee, asserts that Mobile County Commission improperly

terminated Hardee from a road project know as Highpoint Boulevard.

The parties do not dispute that Hardee and the Mobile County

Commission entered into a road project contract on February 5, 2001,

and that Hardee was terminated from the contract on October 10,

2002. Although it is clear that the contract was in existence less

than two years, Defendants insist that they are entitled to

information regarding money payments to Hardee going back ten (10)

years. Moreover, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s objection that the

requests are overly broad, Defendants have taken no steps to narrow

the scope of the requests so as to focus them on the time period in

question. As written, the requests seek information regarding money

payments to Hardee over a ten-year period. The undersigned finds

that the requests are overly broad because it is not Harden’s

financial condition ten years ago that is pertinent to this case,

but the company’s condition immediately prior to and during the

existence of the contract. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to

compel responses to Interrogatory No. 4 and Production Request No.

3 is DENIED.

In Interrogatory No. 5, Defendants seek information regarding

any discussions or threats or actions by Plaintiff against Hardee

regarding any failure to make repayment on any loan amount.

Production Request No. 4 seeks any documents or other materials

related to Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 5. These

requests do not contain any time limitations, nor do they seek to

Case 1:06-cv-00027-BH-B Document 79 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 5
1

Production Request 2 is a duplicate of production request

No. 1.

4

focus the inquiry on the contract at issue in this case.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that as written, they are overly

broad. Thus, Defendants’ request to compel responses to

Interrogatory No. 5 and Production Request No. 5 is DENIED.

Production Request No. 11 seeks documents and materials related

to Harden’s involvement in various contract projects. According to

Defendants, Harden was working on the referenced projects at the

same time that Plaintiff was working on the project in dispute in

this case. Defendants contend that documents regarding the other

projects could, conceivably, support their theory that Harden was

overextended, and thus properly terminated from the Highpoint

Boulevard project. Plaintiff objects to the relevancy of the

requested documents, and further contends that it is not in

possession of Harden’s construction files. Because the requested

materials might shed light on Harden’s operations during the

relevant period, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to search its files for any

responsive materials within its possession, custody, or control, and

produce such documents no later than November 2, 2006. To the

extent Plaintiff claims privilege with respect to any of the

requested documents, Plaintiff shall submit a privilege log

documenting the basis of its contention.

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

the Mobile County Commission to respond to Plaintiff’s

Case 1:06-cv-00027-BH-B Document 79 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 5
5

Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents. (Doc.

65). According to Plaintiff, the Mobile County Commission was

served with Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for the

Production of Documents on July 27, 2006, and despite repeated

requests, Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests. In its responses to Plaintiff’s motion, the Mobile County

Commission did not contest the assertions contained in Plaintiff’s

Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and the Mobile

County Commission is hereby ORDERED, to the extent it has not

already done so, to fully respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests,

including the production of any responsive documents, by November

2, 2006. 

Defendant Speaks & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc., and

Defendant William G. Luker have also filed a motion wherein they

request an order compelling Plaintiff’s counsel to disclose whether

he intends to testify at trial. (Doc. 67). The undersigned has

reviewed Plaintiff’s response, and concludes that Defendants’ motion

is due to be DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel has expressly stated that

he does not anticipate offering testimony at the trial of this case.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED as MOOT.

DONE this 20th day of October 2006.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00027-BH-B Document 79 Filed 10/20/06 Page 5 of 5