IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs

 v.

Michael J. Kuzo,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00466

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s

(“Greyhound”) March 15, 2013 motion to compel (doc. 26). 

Greyhound seeks an order compelling plaintiffs Charles C. Jones and Yvonne P.

Jones to produce debit/credit card account numbers, monthly billing statements, bank

account numbers, including checking accounts and any and all bank monthly

statements from the date of the accident to the present. Greyhound seeks these

documents to verify the truthfulness of Mr. Jones deposition testimony. In his

deposition, Mr. Jones testified that he was limited in his ability to travel, attend social

events, drive and other aspects of his social life and daily activities. 

Mr. and Mrs. Jones argue that the document requests are not timely because the

deadline for completing discovery has passed. In the alternative, the Jones argue that

Greyhound has had ample opportunity to obtain discovery on this issue and that these

Case: 2:11-cv-00466-EAS-MRA Doc #: 32 Filed: 05/16/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
discovery requests are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative and can be obtained

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive. 

Under Rule 26(b), parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Here, Greyhound’s discovery

request is overbroad. It sought all plaintiffs’ debit/credit card and bank records, not just

arguably relevant records such as purchases made on entertainment and travel out-oftown (airline tickets, car rentals, gasoline purchases, motel payments, and the like). 

Moreover, Greyhound has had ample opportunity to discover Mr. Jones’

activities. Greyhound seeks to test Mr. Jones’ statements, but it has not provided any

support for its position that Mr. Jones has not been truthful. Greyhound is merely

speculating there might be relevant information in the Jones’ financial records, but they

have offered no evidence or other reason to back up that speculation. A litigant has no

right to subject an opponent to a very invasive audit of their finances and spending

habits as the price to pay for making a legal claim. 

I further note that these discovery requests were served after the deadline for

completing discovery in this case had passed. The fact that counsel at least tacitly

agreed to conduct certain discovery beyond the deadline for completing all discovery

does not mean that they can bring a discovery dispute arising after that deadline to the

court for resolution. The purpose of Rule 16 case management deadlines is to provide

judicial control over the timing and completion of discovery. When counsel ignore

those deadlines, they defeat that purpose. Having ignored the case management

deadlines, they have no right to come to the court to resolve their discovery disputes.

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00466-EAS-MRA Doc #: 32 Filed: 05/16/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s (“Greyhound”)

March 15, 2013 motion to compel (doc. 26) is DENIED.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days

after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the

Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District

Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00466-EAS-MRA Doc #: 32 Filed: 05/16/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>