The opinion of the court was delivered by: Young B. Kim U.S. Magistrate Judge
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff Merix Pharmaceutical Corporation's ("Merix") motion to compel the production of documents responsive to its Third Set of Requests for Production ("Requests for Production"), motion to deem as admitted each of its First Set of Requests for Admission ("Requests for Admission") and motion for sanctions. For the following reasons, the motions are denied:
On July 30, 2010, Merix served defendant EMS Acquisition Corporation ("EMS") with its Requests for Production and Requests for Admission. A month later, on August 31, 2010, EMS served Merix with its responses to each of these requests. After reviewing EMS's responses, Merix filed the instant motion to compel the production of documents responsive to its Requests for Production on September 2, 2010, and also filed the subject motion to deem as admitted its Requests for Admission on September 3, 2010. EMS then filed briefs in opposition to both motions on September 9, 2010. Merix subsequently filed a motion for sanctions on September 13, 2010, and EMS filed its brief in opposition to the motion on September 15, 2010. Thereafter, Merix filed its reply briefs in support of its three motions on September 15, 2010.
In its motion, Merix moves the court for an order compelling EMS to produce documents responsive to its Requests for Production, request numbers 71 through 87. (R. 187 at 1.) Merix first asserts that EMS's August 31, 2010 responses to its Requests for Production were untimely because they were one date late. (Id.) Next, Merix contends that EMS's responses are deficient and wholly unresponsive because EMS simply copied and reasserted the same identical objection to each and every request. (Id.) Here, Merix claims that EMS's bad faith responses are exemplified by the fact that the responses include an objection to producing tax returns when the only request seeking the production of tax returns is request number 71. (Id. at 2.) Thus, Merix contends that EMS "did nothing more than list the same stonewalling responses to each and every one of the document requests." (Id. at 3.)
Merix argues that it is entitled to seek production of documents pertaining to EMS's financial condition and operations because it has alleged a fraud claim in its Fourth Amended Complaint against EMS. (Id. at 3-4.) Specifically, Merix claims that it is entitled to explore the legitimate bounds of EMS's financial condition to look for unusual transactions, including financial incentives paid by GlaxoSmithKline for putting the active ingredient BKC in the subject placebo and to determine whether EMS has siphoned off assets to the benefit of its officers and owners to avoid paying a recovery to Merix. (Id. at 4.) Next, Merix contends that it legitimately seeks documents pertaining to the original master record created at EMS regarding the production of the product Releev because EMS made several unauthorized and unexplained changes to the manufacturing instructions. (Id. at 5.) Here, Merix seeks production of these documents because Merix claims it is entitled to investigate changes made to its manufacturing instructions and documentation to support its version of what occurred before, during and after Merix's September 2005 trip to EMS. (Id. at 5-6.)
EMS defends that it timely served its responses to Merix's Requests for Production on August 31, 2010, which was one day before the September 1, 2010 due date. (R. 192 at 3.) EMS next asserts that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) Merix was required to confer in good faith with EMS prior to filing this motion. (Id. at 4.) EMS points out that Merix did not include the certification required under this rule detailing its efforts to work out the subject production issues. (Id.)
EMS also contends that Merix's motion should be denied because the information it seeks is not relevant to any material issue in this lawsuit. (Id. at 1-2.) First, EMS claims that Merix should not be permitted access to its financial records because Merix's fraud claim that EMS manufactured the subject placebo contrary to the specified manufacturing instructions is without merit. (Id.) EMS maintains that Merix's President personally approved the placebo when she visited EMS on September 15, 2005, and observed the manufacturing of the placebo. (Id. at 2.) EMS also maintains that it provided Merix with a Certificate of Analysis clearly identifying BKC as the very ingredient in the placebo, as called for in Merix's protocol. (Id.) Second, EMS objects to producing telephone records because there is no suggestion that there was any telephone call in 2005 when Merix made the request for the placebo that discloses any information relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. (Id.)
Rule 34(a)(1) provides that a party may request, among other things, the production of documents that constitute matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) and are in the possession, custody, or control of another party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). According to Rule 26(b)(1) "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." The party from whom the documents are requested "must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B). Under Rule 34, a party is permitted to seek an order compelling disclosure when the opposing party fails to allow inspection of the requested documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). A court has broad discretion when reviewing a discovery dispute between parties and "should independently determine the proper course of discovery based upon the arguments of the parties." Gile v. United Airlines Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996). The value of the materials sought and the burden of providing the same should also be considered when ruling on motions to compel. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002).
The motion to compel is denied. First, the court finds that EMS timely served its responses and objections. Under Rule 34(b)(2)(A), a party to whom a document request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served with the request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A). And under Rule 6(d), three additional days are added "after the period would otherwise expire" when service is effected electronically pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(E). Here, it is undisputed that on July 30, 2010, Merix electronically served EMS's counsel with its Requests for Production and EMS served Merix with its responses and objections on August 31, 2010. Because Merix effectuated electronic service, EMS had 33 days, or until September 1, 2010, to respond to Merix. See Ford v. Wright, No. 06-cv-449, 2009 WL 297575, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2009) (Rule 6(d) provided defendants with an additional three days to respond to discovery beyond the 30-day period provided in Rule 34). Accordingly, EMS's responses and objections were timely served on Merix.
Second, as EMS correctly points out, Merix failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) and Northern District of Illinois Local Rule ("LR") 37.2. LR 37.2 requires a party to make a good faith attempt to resolve any discovery disputes with the opposing party prior to bringing a ...