List v. Carwell

Background

The case concerns a 2015 automobile accident in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Robert Carwell was driving a commercial truck for 0820527 B C LTD, doing business as Let It Ride Carriers, when the truck collided with a vehicle driven by Troy Fiedler. Jason List and Jodi Fiedler were passengers in Fiedler’s vehicle. Let It Ride’s owner, Dave Chetcuti, later died, and the company was in the process of dissolving. Carwell also suffered a heart attack, experienced medical complications, and stated that he could not participate in a deposition until fall 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on travel between the United States and Canada further complicated discovery.

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel

The List Plaintiffs and the Fiedler Intervenors asked the court to require discovery responses and remote depositions. The court addressed the following matters:

- The parties agreed that Carwell’s signed verification of his interrogatory answers would have the same effect as a notarized signature. If they had not already done so, they were required to sign that stipulation by November 15, 2020. - Carwell agreed to provide or supplement information concerning his criminal history, cell-phone records, and medical records. If the required authorizations had not already been completed, he was ordered to complete them by November 1, 2020 and reasonably cooperate with follow-up requests. - Carwell was ordered to supplement his answer to Interrogatory 7, which sought information about any third party allegedly responsible for or contributing to the collision, by November 15, 2020, if he had not already done so. - Regarding insurance-related requests, Carwell was required to supplement his response to Request for Production 21 by November 15, 2020, if necessary. The court otherwise denied the List Plaintiffs’ motion concerning those requests because Carwell represented that he did not possess the requested materials and the insurance company was not a party to the case. - The portion of the List Plaintiffs’ motion concerning the number of interrogatories was denied as moot because Carwell had already answered them. The court also denied any request for information beyond the specific discovery request at issue concerning people Carwell called after the collision.

The court granted the List Plaintiffs’ and Fiedler Intervenors’ request to take Carwell’s deposition remotely. Carwell was ordered to participate in a video-conference deposition no sooner than December 1 and no later than December 15, 2020. The court concluded that remote testimony balanced Carwell’s health concerns, the pandemic, travel difficulties, and the need to move the case forward.

Let It Ride’s discovery and corporate deposition

The court rejected the defendants’ position that Let It Ride did not have to answer discovery because it was dissolving and its owner and sole employee had died. Let It Ride remained a party that had answered the case and contested liability. The court concluded that the company still had a duty to respond to properly served discovery.

The court also concluded that documents held by Rhonda Hiscutt could be within Let It Ride’s “possession, custody, or control,” a discovery term that can include documents a party has a legal right or practical ability to obtain even if it does not physically possess them. The parties were ordered to arrange for boxes of Let It Ride documents held by Hiscutt in Canada to be shipped to defense counsel by November 15, 2020. The plaintiffs agreed to pay the shipping costs to defense counsel, and defendants were ordered to pay for returning the boxes to Hiscutt no later than 60 days after the case ended, including any appeals.

By January 15, 2021, defendants were ordered to respond without objection to the List Plaintiffs’ May 8, 2019 interrogatories and document requests to Let It Ride, the Fiedler Intervenors’ November 5, 2019 document requests, and the ten specified Fiedler interrogatories: 1, 20, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41, and 47. The plaintiffs’ motions to compel were otherwise denied as to Let It Ride’s outstanding discovery.

The court granted the List Plaintiffs’ request for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a corporation to designate and prepare a representative to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization, even if the representative lacks personal knowledge. Let It Ride was ordered to prepare and produce such a representative for a remote deposition by February 15, 2021.

Defendants’ motions and scheduling

The defendants moved to compel additional discovery responses from the List Plaintiffs and Fiedler Intervenors. The court denied both motions because they were filed after the June 1, 2020 deadline for discovery-related motions and defendants did not show the required “good cause”—a legally sufficient reason why the deadline could not reasonably be met despite diligence. The court found that defendants had waited about five months after receiving the discovery responses before raising their concerns.

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order, and granted in part and denied in part the Fiedler Intervenors’ request for scheduling relief. The court found good cause for a limited extension to complete the discovery and depositions ordered in the opinion, but not for a blanket extension of all fact discovery. Fact discovery was extended to February 15, 2021, and the court directed that other deadlines and the settlement conference be reset in a Fifth Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order.

Fees and final order

The court denied all requests for attorney fees and costs related to the motions and ordered each party to bear its own fees and costs. The final order states that the List Plaintiffs’ motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Fiedler Intervenors’ motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the defendants’ motion to amend the scheduling order was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and both of the defendants’ motions to compel were DENIED. The order also warned that failure to comply could lead to remedies or sanctions, including evidence limits, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.