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.

Camphausen v. Schweitzer

November 3, 2010

CAMPHAUSEN
v.
SCHWEITZER ET AL



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court grants Defendant Doreen Schweitzer's motion to compel [31] in its entirety.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On June 10, 2010, Plaintiff Dan Camphausen, a citizen of Wisconsin, brought the present three-count Complaint against Defendants Doreen Schweitzer and Ronald May, both citizens of Illinois, based on the Court's diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In his Complaint, Camphausen alleges a slander claim against Schweitzer and libel and invasion of privacy claims against May.*fn1 Before the Court is Schweitzer's motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, grants Schweitzer's motion to compel in its entirety. If Camphausen is unaware of any further documents or information in his possession, custody, or control that are responsive to these interrogatories and document requests, Camphausen must provide Schweitzer with an affidavit of completeness.

Continued...

Courtroom Deputy KF

LEGAL STANDARD

The federal discovery rules are liberal in order to assist in the preparation for trial and settlement of litigated disputes. See Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ("the scope of discovery should be broad in order to aid in the search for truth"). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). "The burden rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper." Kodish, 235 F.R.D. at 450. In the context of motions to compel, the Seventh Circuit instructs that a "district court may grant or deny the motion in whole or in part, and similar to ruling on a request for a protective order under Rule 26(c), the district court may fashion a ruling appropriate for the circumstances of the case." Gile v. United Air Lines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996). As with all discovery matters, district courts have broad discretion in determining motions to compel. See Peals v. Terre Haute Police Dept., 535 F.2d 621, 629 (7th Cir. 2008); Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756, 761 (7th Cir. 2007).

BACKGROUND

In his Complaint, Camphausen alleges that from July 2007 through January 2009 he was a registered representative of the securities brokerage firm Interocean Securities, LLC, located in Chicago, Illinois. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 1.) Camphausen further alleges that May is the owner, writer, and editor of "The May Report," which is an online periodical that covers local Chicago media, "key high tech players, local high tech organizations, and the players in the infrastructure like the lawyers, accountants, consultants, financing people, and more." (Id. ¶ 3.)

From March 2002 through July 2007, prior to his affiliation with Interocean Securities, Camphausen alleges that he was a registered representative of the securities brokerage firm Advanced Equities, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 6.) Camphausen also alleges that prior to that time period, he was a registered representative of CIBC World Markets Corporation. (Id.)

For several years until 2005, Camphausen states that he was the registered representative for Schweitzer's investment account and that Schweitzer's former husband introduced her to Camphausen. (Id. ¶ 7.) During Schweitzer's divorce, Camphausen alleges that Schweitzer developed hostility towards him. (Id. ¶ 8.) Camphausen also alleges that during 2005 a registered representative of Merrill Lynch solicited Schweitzer and her daughter to transfer their investment accounts to Merrill Lynch. (Id. ¶ 9.) Thereafter, Camphausen filed an arbitration action against Merrill Lynch arising out of this solicitation, which the parties eventually settled. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Camphausen further maintains that on or about February 9, 2010, Schweitzer telephoned May and falsely told him that Camphausen threatened the registered representative at Merrill Lynch by stating "You might end up in the bottom of the river." (Id. ¶ 11.) Camphausen further states that Schweitzer's motivation in making these statements was her long-standing animus towards Camphausen as her ex-husband's broker. (Id. ¶ 17.) On February 20, 2010, May published information about his telephone conversation with Schweitzer, including that Camphausen threatened the Merrill Lynch representative stating "You might end up in the bottom of the river." (Id. ¶ 12, Ex. 1, "The May Report".) Based on these allegations, Camphausen seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $3,000,000 for each claim. In relation to his claim against Schweitzer, Camphausen alleges that "[a]s a direct and proximate result of the statements ...


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.