Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-1284 - Hightower v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-1284 - Hightower v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
April 27, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 28 Motion to Compel as set forth in document. IT IS ORDERED that defendant must produce all internal audit reports regarding Don Bohn Ford for the relevant time period in its possession, custody or control and must supplement its response to state that it has done so or that it has no such materials, if that is the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all materials produced in response to this request are confidential and subject to the protective order. Finally, it appears from the copy of defendant's answers to interrogatories provided to me that the answers are not verified under oath, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(B), (3) and (5). Accordingly, defendant is HEREBY ORDERED, no later than May 11, 2016, to provide the required verification of interrogatory answers, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34, and to provide all responsive, nonprivileged documents within the scope of this order to plaintiff.Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 4/27/2016. (my)
June 22, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER AND REASONS: Ultimately, plaintiff's arguments merely rehash the evidence, legal theories and arguments that he raised in his motion to compel. He has not carried his burden to show any manifest error of law or fact or manifest injustice that would justify the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In its opposition memorandum, defendant requested an award of attorney's fees for what it characterizes as a legally and factually baseless motion for reconsideration. This request is denied. Based on the current record and the necessarily flexible nature of proportionality analysis, I find that plaintiff's motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.(mmv)