United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JASON R. LABER
LONG VIEW R.V., INC. d/b/a LONG VIEW RV SUPERSTORE, et al.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [#45] AND
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
October 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel seeking
an order directing defendant Long View R.V., Inc.
(“Long View”) to permit an inspection and road
test of the vehicle at issue in this matter. [Doc. #45]. In
response, defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel and Cross Motion for an Order for
Inspection. [Doc. #51]. Plaintiff filed a Reply. [Doc. #54].
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion to
compel is GRANTED and defendants' cross
motion is DENIED.
alleges that the 2017 Thor Miramar 34.3 (“the
RV”) he purchased from Long View on or about June 9,
2016, was delivered with defects. See Doc. #1 at 2. Plaintiff
notified defendants of the alleged defects, and defendants
took possession of the RV and attempted to repair it. See
Id. at 3-4.
plaintiff refused to retake possession of the RV from Long
View after determining that the RV's slide-out system had
not been repaired. See Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges
that on February 23, 2017, he “served written notice on
the defendants that [he] revoked acceptance of the RV.”
Id. On April 3, 2017, plaintiff filed this action
seeking damages stemming from his purchase of the RV. See
October 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel, see
Doc. #45, which was referred to the undersigned by Judge
Alvin W. Thompson, see Doc. #46. Plaintiff asks the Court to
issue an order directing Long View to permit plaintiff's
expert witness, Thomas Bailey, to inspect the RV and conduct
a road test utilizing Long View's dealer plates. See Doc.
response, defendants filed “Defendants' Memorandum
of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and
in Support of Defendants' Cross Motion for an Order for
Inspection.” Doc. #51-5. Defendants do not contend that
plaintiff's requests to inspect the RV and conduct a road
test are beyond the scope and limits of permissible discovery
set forth in Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Id. Rather, defendants' cross
motion asks the Court to impose certain restrictions and
limits on plaintiff's inspection of the RV and to
prohibit the road test unless the RV is properly registered
and insured. See Id. Accordingly, the Court
construes defendants' cross motion as a motion for a
protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
December 12, 2017, the Court held a telephonic status
conference with counsel for all parties and informed them of
its intentions regarding the cross motions to compel and for
protective order. See Doc. #59. The parties requested more
time to address the remaining issues pertaining to insurance
and the timing of the inspection. Therefore, the Court
entered an Order requiring the parties to file a joint notice
regarding the status of these issues. See Id. The
parties filed a joint statement on December 22, 2017, which
indicated that plaintiff has secured adequate insurance for
the road test, and that the parties have agreed to a
procedure for the inspection and scheduled it for January 12,
2018. See Doc. #61.
34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
“[a] party may serve on any other party a request
within the scope of Rule 26(b) ... to produce and permit the
requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy,
test, or sample [any designated tangible things] in the
responding party's possession, custody, or
control[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope and
limitations of permissible discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The party resisting
discovery bears the burden of showing why discovery should be
denied.” Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster &
Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009).
may seek a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense, including[:] ... (A) forbidding the
disclosure or discovery; (B) specifying terms, including time
and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure
or discovery; (C) prescribing a discovery method other than
the one selected by the party seeking discovery; (D)
forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the
scope of disclosure ...