Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package System, No. 2:2005cv00085 - Document 447 (D. Mont. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting in part and denying in part 200 Motion to Compel. 1. Dft's Renewed Motion to Compel Adequate Responses of Pla Callahan to Revised Interrogatory Nos. 3,4,6,7 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 2. The portion of the mot requesting atty fees and costs is GRANTED to the extent that Callahan shall pay 10% of the fees and costs Dft incurred in prep of the Renewed Motion to Compel. 3. An award of fees and costs will be addressed by further order after all pending motions to compel have been resolved by the Court. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 10/5/2012. (ELL, ) Modified on 10/5/2012 to correct text and link (ELL, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package System Doc. 447 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION ROB CARLSON et aI., Plaintiffs, No. CV-05-85-BU-SEH vs. ORDER FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a! FEDEX HOME DELIVERY, Defendants. On September 12,2012, Special Master, W. Wayne Harper, entered his Findings and Recommendations! on Defendant's Renewed Motion to Compel Adequate Responses from Plaintiff Michael Callahan (Callahan). No objections were filed. The Court reviews the Special Master's findings of fact for clear error, and reviews his conclusions oflaw de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 (f)(3)-(4). I find no error in the Special Master's Findings and Recommendations and I Document No. 436 Dockets.Justia.com adopt them in full. ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Renewed Motion to Compel Adequate responses of Plaintiff Michael Callahan to Revised Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 2 is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows: a. The portion ofthe motion relating to Callahan's response to Interrogatory No.6 is DENIED as moot as Defendant has acknowledged that Callahan's supplemental response of July 10, 2012, is adequate. b. The portion ofthe motion relating to Callahan's response to Interrogatory No.7 is DENIED as Callahan's supplemental response of July 10,2012, is adequate and appropriate. c. The portion of the motion relating to Callahan's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 is GRANTED to the extent that Callahan's proof at trial as to matters within the ambit of Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 shall be limited to the specific disclosures and responses provided by him as of September 12,2012. Callahan may not present or offer evidence at trial that alters, contradicts, expands, supplements or 2 Docwnent No. 200 -2 otherwise changes such disclosures and responses. 2. The portion of the motion requesting attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED to the extent that Callahan shall pay 10% of the fees and costs Defendant incurred in preparation of the Renewed Motion to Compel. 3. An award of fees and costs will be addressed by further order after all pending motions to compel have been resolved by the Court. DATED this 5th day of October, 2012. ~ fl4if'cP'~ ) ~E.HADDON United States District Judge -3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
