The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Gorman United States Magistrate Judge
E-FILED Friday, 14 January, 2011 03:06:57 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
The parties have consented to have this case heard to judgment by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the District Judge has referred the case to me. Now before the Court are the following motions: RMS's Motion in objection to JESCO'S response to Court Order (#122); and Henderson County's Motion to Compel (#123).
Henderson County's Motion to Compel simply asks to join in RMS's motion, objecting to JESCO's response to the Court Order. That motion (#123) is GRANTED.
On October 29, an Order was entered, granting two motions to compel and directing JESCO (Delaware)*fn1 to provide supplemental information in four categories. RMS (and the County) object to the information that JESCO provided in response to three of the four categories discussed in the Order. JESCO stands on the supplemental information it provided. Each item, along with RMS's objection and JESCO's explanation is discussed below.
Before beginning this discussion, it is necessary to provide what the Court considers relevant context to this ongoing*fn2 dispute. Until well into discovery in this case, RMS was unaware that the defendant JESCO (Delaware) was not the same JESCO entity with which it had previously done business. In fact, RMS learned that the JESCO entity that is a Defendant in this case had never done any business or brought in any income before the dewatering project underlying this case. This, despite a brochure given to Henderson County that lists RMS as one of its significant clients. Understandably, RMS began doing discovery on "related" Jesco entities. Its efforts have, in its opinion, been stymied by the Defendant.
It was in this context that the Court considered the motion to compel and issued its Order. The Court is well aware that this dispute relates primarily to potential collection of a judgment that has not yet been entered. That fact, however, does not preclude discovery. In order to move this case forward, the original order was entered. We are now back at square one, because, as noted above, RMS still objects to the discovery provided, and JESCO stands on the propriety of the information it has provided.
The first category of information ordered by the Court was for disclosure of the identity of any Jesco entity involved in any way in the underlying dewatering project or in the contract negotiation between Jesco and any party to this litigation. "Jesco entity" was defined as "any business in which John Shavers or his ex-wife have a financial or ownership interest or had such an interest at the time the contracts were executed."
Jesco responded: "No other entity, other than Jesco Construction Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the party in this action) was involved in this project, negotiated any of the contracts or participated in the performance of any work pursuant to the contracts for this project."
RMS objects that Jesco's response is "contradicted by the documents produced in this case." The documents to which RMS refers are checks that were paid by other JESCO-related entities to JESCO (Delaware) employees and to subcontractors on the dewatering project. JESCO explains: "Without any payments from the County (and without any payments during performance of the work) Jesco obtained and used other funds to make payments to these parties ... Those payments ... hardly represent 'involvement' in the project."
I find that JESCO's supplemental response is adequate under the circumstances. RMS and the County have copies of these checks. If the only involvement of the "Jesco entities" was to issue checks, then that involvement has been adequately disclosed. No other inadequacy or contradiction has been raised by RMS.
The second category of information was the identity of any "overlapping subcontractors," which was defined as any subcontractor with which Jesco has worked, both on the project at issue in this case and previously on other projects during the two years preceding execution of the contract at issue in this case.
JESCO (Delaware) responded that it did not work on any other projects, within two years preceding execution of the Jesco/Henderson County contract, with any of the subcontractors Jesco hired for the County project.. RMS objects to JESCO's limiting of its response to subcontractors previously hired by JESCO-Delwaware only, as opposed to subcontractors hired by any "Jesco entity".
As Jesco points out, the Court's order was limited to "JESCO". In addition, because no other Jesco entity was identified in (1) above, JESCO takes the position ...