Opinion
Number: 2:02-cv-00010PGC
April 13, 2004
C. RICHARD HENRIKSEN, JR., JAMES E. SEAMAN, AARON W. FLATER, HENRIKSEN HENRIKSEN, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants PURE, Inc., PURE Foundation, Inc. and Sue Scheff Fred Silvester Spencer Siebers, for Plaintiff
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
After the Court's Order regarding outstanding Motions dated March 4, 2004, the Court held a hearing by telephone on March 11, 2004 with Aaron W. Flater appearing for Defendants and Spencer Siebers appearing for Plaintiff and with regard to subpoenas, served on other WWASP schools except Academy at Ivy Ridge and Midwest Academy. After argument of counsel, the Court orders the following: SUBPOENAS
1. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' request that Plaintiff immediately produce the documents subpoenaed from various WWASP schools the Exhibit "A" to the Subpoenas sent to Carolina Springs Academy, Cross Creek Programs, Majestic Ranch Academy, Spring Creek Lodge, Academy at Ivy Ridge, Midwest Academy is modified as follows:
a. The programs do not have to provide a response to numbers 1 2.
b. The Court limits request number 3 to correspondence in any form between governmental entities and the program regarding any findings of abuse, neglect or mistreatment.
c. With respect to item number 4, the Court orders that only Carolina Springs Academy needs to produce a form contract and marketing materials including brochures. The other programs do not need to produce additional documents.
d. With respect to item number 5, the programs are ordered to produce all documents responsive to this request.
e. Item numbers 6 7 are modified to documents notifying the programs of any suspensions, denials or revocations of licensing or accreditation status.
f. With respect to item number 8 the programs should produce any and all documents related to investigations into abuse or neglect done by WWASP officials or by personnel at the program. To the extent this request asks for documents of investigations of governmental entities, the request is limited to findings of abuse or neglect by those governmental entities.
g. Request number 9 is modified to request all documents regarding findings of abuse or neglect.
h. Numbers 10 thorough 13 are ordered to be produced without modification.
i. Numbers 14 and 15 regarding confidentiality agreements does not need to be produced.
j. Number 16 regarding documents referring to High Impact should be produced.
k. Number 17 regarding copies of contracts between your program and WWASP does not need to be produced.
I. With regard to Number 18, the programs should produce copies of all contracts between that program and Teen Help.
m. Number 19 at this point the Court declines to order the production of copies of the personnel file of employees who have been accused, charged or investigated for any complaints of abuse, neglect or mistreatment. The Court finds that this request is over broad but will give consideration to a brief submitted by the Defendants showing a compelling need for the production of these documents.
n. The documents requested in number 20 are ordered to be produced.
2. All of these documents are ordered to be produced by March 19, 2004 with the exception of the documents requested in item 5. The documents requested in item 5 should be produced by April 1, 2004,
DISCOVERY CUTOFF
3. The Defendants had requested of the Court an extension of the discovery cutoff of April 15, 2004 and the Court hereby grants an extension of the discovery cutoff until April 20, 2004.
DEPOSITIONS:
The parties requested a clarification of the Court's order regarding depositions. After consideration of this request, the Court orders as follows:
4. All depositions taken in this proceeding from the date of this Order shall be attended only by the witness, a certified court reporter, attorneys for the parties, and attorneys for the witness.
5. Transcripts from such depositions may be sent by the court reporter to attorneys for the parties only. The attorney who noticed the deposition shall be responsible to send one (1) copy of such transcript to the witness, or the witnesses' attorney, for review and signature. That attorney shall further be responsible for informing the witness that no copies of the transcript may be made or distributed. A witness or witnesses' attorney shall not receive transcripts or copies of depositions other than for his/her own deposition.
6. No transcripts of such depositions shall be produced to the parties in this action or disseminated to third parties until published by the court.
7. The attorneys and witnesses shall not disclose or discuss with any persons confidential financial information or confidential trade secrets learned during any of the depositions or other discovery in this matter until such time as the information may become public through trial of this matter.
8. The attorneys and witnesses are entitled to discuss the contents and testimony of any depositions taken in this case for purposes of this litigation only, but should not include confidential financial information or confidential trade secrets, with the parties, witnesses, experts and other persons.
9. For depositions taken prior to entry of this order which were not included as attachments to prior motions in this case, transcripts may be provided to the parties, witnesses, experts and other persons for purposes of this litigation only after confidential financial information, confidential trade secrets, and identification or personal information of any minor child, except Ashlyn Scheff, have been redacted.
PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES:
10. The Defendants requested that the Court require that the Plaintiff clarify the damages that it is claiming in this case. After discussion with the Court, The Court finds that the Plaintiff has deliberately changed its position related to its claims of damages according to the exigencies of the case. The Court warns the Plaintiff that it is prepared to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel and limit the Plaintiffs damages according to its previous representations to the Court and to the Defendants. The Court hereby orders the Plaintiff to provide specific detailed answers to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 13, Request for Production No. 5 and specific detail regarding each and every claim of damage it plans to pursue at trial, including an itemization of dollar amounts for each category of damages.
CAREY BOCK:
11. The Court orders that Plaintiff may freely contact Carey Bock without further order of the court or consent of the Defendants.
PRIVILEGE LOG:
12. The Court orders the Defendants to produce a privilege log by March 19, 2004 for any documents that have been requested in discovery but not produced because of a claimed privilege. The privilege log shall identify each document according to the factors set forth in Burns v. Imagine Films Entertainment. Inc. 198 F.R.D. 593 (WDNY 2000)
COMPUTERS:
13. With regards to the issue of producing the Defendants' computers, the Plaintiff's counsel has previously prepared a separate order concerning that issue. DATED this day of April, 2004.