Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Luedeka Neely x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Copyright | Wisconsin Western
Text Only Order
** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Defendants filed a motion to compel certain financial information. Dkt. 270 . As explained more fully in the court's order in the parallel case, Case No. 25-cv-75, this motion is DENIED as premature. The discovery requests relevant to the tortious interference claim asserted in this case were served July 2, responses were provided August 3, and plaintiffs sent a letter outlining perceived deficiencies a few days later. The parties were engaging in some back-and-forth when plaintiffs filed their motion in the parallel case on August 12. Defendants then adopted that motion in this case just five dates later, on August 17, even though plaintiff reported it was supplementing its production. This does not demonstrate the good faith conferral that the court expects parties to engage in prior to bringing discovery motions. Because the motion is denied in its entirety, plaintiff may file a petition for costs and fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B) by September 30, and defendants may respond by October 7. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor on 9/23/2026. (jls),(ps)
** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendants to produce certain financial information. Dkt. 191 . There are some fundamental problems with this motion, including that it raises issues that were not ripe. Most egregiously, the motion seeks to compel information from defendant Clearspan Components LLC, but plaintiffs did not notify Clearspan prior to filing the motion that plaintiffs found its productions deficient. Even now, it is not clear that there are any deficiencies with Clearspan's discovery responses. Plaintiffs did communicate perceived deficiencies to the Paragon defendants prior to filing the motion. These defendants object that plaintiffs did not timely raise many issues and that their motion does not align with what they did raise. There is some truth to that--the motion includes some categories of information that do not appear in the parties' correspondence. Compare Dkt. 191 at 6-7 with Dkt. 193 -1 at 2. But deficiencies with certain information, including customer information, sales units, and sales prices, were raised timely. The court is persuaded that this information is relevant to plaintiffs' lost profit claims, and it should not be overly burdensome to produce. With respect to this information, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. The Paragon defendants are ORDERED to supplement their productions with this missing information by October 5. Beyond that, the motion is DENIED. The other information sought by this motion appears largely related to a tortious interference claim asserted in the parallel case, Case No. 25-cv-170. While the parties have agreed to share discovery across these cases, it does not follow that a motion should be brought in this case to compel discovery primarily related to the other. Even so, the motion is premature with respect to this information. The discovery requests related to the tortious interference claim were served July 2, responses were provided August 3, and plaintiffs sent a letter outlining perceived deficiencies a few days later. The parties were engaging in some back-and-forth when plaintiffs filed their motion on August 12. This does not demonstrate the good faith conferral that the court expects parties to engage in prior to bringing discovery motions. Because the motion is denied in its entirety with respect to Clearspan, it may file a petition for costs and fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B). Plaintiffs and the Paragon defendants bear their own costs and fees on this motion. Plaintiffs ask the court to reset the damages expert disclosure deadlines. The court is not persuaded that there is good cause for this reset, but it will authorize limited supplementation as follows: Plaintiffs may disclose a supplemental proponent damages expert report focused solely on any newly disclosed information by October 15, and defendants may disclose a supplemental respondent damages expert report by October 26. The court sees no good cause to reset any other deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor on 9/23/2026. (jls),(ps)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.