United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
RICHARD A. CLARK and JENNIFER CLARK, Plaintiffs,
RIVER METALS RECYCLING and SIERRA INTERNATIONAL MACHINERY, LLC, Defendants.
J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on the following motions filed by
Plaintiffs Richard Clark and Jennifer Clark:
1. Motion to Compel Supplemental Answer to Supplemental
Interrogatory #8, or in the Alternative, to Reconsider the
Court's Order of 9/28/2017 Denying Plaintiff's
Emergency Motion to Compel (Doc. 146);
2. Motion to Compel Answer to Question Posed to Corporate
Representative and to Compel Pursuant to Rule 37(a) (Doc.
3. Motion for Additional Discovery to Respond to
Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant
to FRCP 56(d)(2) (Doc. 163);
4. Motion to Set Aside Order Closing Discovery (Doc. 166);
5. Motion to Compel Defendant Sierra Machinery, LLC to File a
Non-Evasive Complete Supplemental Answer to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatory #11 and a Supplemental Request for Production
#7 (Doc. 172); and
6. Motion to Amend Relief Sought in Doc. 163, or in the
Alternative, a Supplemental Motion for Additional Discovery
Made Pursuant to FRCP 56(d)(2) (Doc. 175).
motions have been fully briefed by the parties and the Court
held a hearing on the same on January 11, 2018, wherein the
parties proffered oral argument. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiffs' Motions are DENIED.
a products liability action in which Plaintiff Richard Clark
sustained injuries during the course of his employment with
Thornton Auto Crushing. Clark alleges he slipped and fell
while refilling hydraulic fluid on a Sierra International
Machinery car logger/baler model number RB600, serial #125105
(“the Product”), due to a defective and
unreasonably dangerous condition. In particular, Clark
alleges the car logger/baler: (1) failed to provide adequate
platform and/or area in which to provide known maintenance
including refilling hydraulic fluid; and (2) failed to have
handrails or area in which to hold onto while performing
routine maintenance including refilling hydraulic fluid.
August 15, 2017, the undersigned reopened discovery on a
limited basis following the filing of summary judgment
motions due to the failure of Defendant Sierra International
Machinery, LLC (“Sierra”) to disclose information
concerning the attachment of the trailer to the baler
(See Doc. 118). Plaintiffs were granted leave to
conduct limited discovery on the trailer and assembly of the
baler and trailer (“the Product”) by way of one
additional round of written discovery and one deposition.
the limited reopening of discovery, Plaintiffs filed the
motions now before the Court. Plaintiffs seek certain
discrete supplemental answers to their discovery requests
and, more broadly, ask the Court to reopen discovery
concerning the trailer at issue. The Court first addresses
Plaintiffs' motions related to their broader request to
for Additional Discovery (Doc. 163), Motion to Amend Relief
Sought in Doc. 163 (Doc. 175), and Motion to Set Aside Order
Closing Discovery (Doc. 166)
these motions, Plaintiffs set forth arguments to support
alternative requests for relief that ultimately amount to a
request to reopen discovery so they may be allowed to
ascertain information about the design of the trailer on
which the baler was mounted.
contend that Sierra misled them to believe it did not
participate in the design of the trailer at issue. In support
of this argument, Plaintiffs point to Sierra's response
to their Interrogatory #11, set forth as follows:
Plaintiffs' Interrogatory #11 (Doc. 151-1):
Please identify the individual or individuals employed by the
Defendant, who would have the most knowledge concerning the
design, and/or configuration of the product referred to in
the Plaintiffs' ...