Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mascot Technologies, Inc. v. Guda

May 30, 2007

MASCOT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PLAINTIFF
v.
VIJEETH GUDA; YORK ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS; JIM SPINNER; AND UNIVERSAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Gorman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#48). The motion is fully briefed and I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part, as stated below.

At issue in this motion are Plaintiff's First Request to Admit Facts and Genuineness of Documents and Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents. According to Plaintiff, the responses were "essentially ambiguous, equivocal and non-responsive." (Plaintiff's Motion at p.3 ¶ 10). According to Defendants, they have "fully and completely responded" to both and they do not understand what this dispute is about.

As an introductory matter, Defendants' Response to the Request to Admit and Response to the Request to Produce each include two "General Objections." These "General Objections" read as follows:

1. Defendants object to the instructions preceding the Requests to the extent the instructions purport to impose upon Defendant any obligation in answering the Requests in excess of the obligation imposed upon Defendant by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Defendants object to each Request if and to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product privilege.

Neither of these objections adds anything to the Defendants' response or to this analysis. Rule 36(a) and Rule 34(b) require that objections be stated specifically, with the reason for the objection. A general objection such as the first one, that one of the Requests may have requested some improper material or response, does not satisfy the requirement of specificity, nor does it comport with the general spirit of the Rules to fairly confront the substance of discovery requests. The second one is meaningless unless a privilege log is produced as required by Rule 26(b)(5), and no such log has been brought to the Court's attention. With respect to the pending motion, therefore, both General Objections are ignored. No other objections having been made, this analysis is limited to the completeness and clarity of the Responses.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) provides that a party may serve on another party a request for the admission: of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) ... that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying."

Plaintiff's Request to Admit and Defendants' Responses thereto encompassed three statements, as follows:

1. On or about June 25, 2004, Defendant Jim Spinner acting in his official capacity on behalf of Defendant York Enterprise Solutions delivered a Master Contract Agreement to Plaintiff's agent Purav.

RESPONSE: Admitted that on or about June 25, 2004, Defendant Jim Spinner, acting as an agent of Defendant York Enterprise Solutions and acting within the scope of his authority, delivered an unsigned document entitled "Master Contract Agreement" to Plaintiff's agent Purav.

2. Exhibit A attached hereto is a true copy of the Master Contract Agreement delivered by Defendant Jim Spinner to Plaintiff's agent Purav on or about June 25, 2004.

RESPONSE: Admitted that Exhibit A is a copy of the unsigned document entitled "Master Contract Agreement" delivered by Jim Spinner to Purav of Mascot Technologies on or about June 25, 2004.

3. On or about June 25, 2004, Defendant Jim Spinner acting in his official capacity on behalf of Defendant York Enterprise Solutions delivered a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.