There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH Document 109 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-cv-2461-MSK-MEH LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
FELDMEIER EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Document 95) Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company (“Leprino” or “Plaintiff”), through its counsel, states the following in opposition to Defendant’s “Motion to Compel Discovery” (“Motion to Compel”). Defendant's Motion to Compel is moot and must be denied. The Motion to Compel seeks the following three categories of documents: (1) a request for bid to numerous silo manufacturers, responses of manufacturers and an "Approval for Expenditure"; (2) a project file; and (3) plans for modification. (See, Motion to Compel at pp. 1-2.) While Defendant never made a proper Rule 34 request for the production of those documents, any and all non-privileged documents responsive to Defendant's Motion to Compel have been produced already. First, any non-privileged documents in the possession of Leprino that were responsive to the first category of documents identified above were copied and mailed to Defendant's counsel on or about September 8, 2005. Second, the project file, to the
Page 2
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH Document 109 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 2 of 3 extent any documents can be considered included in such a designation, has already been produced to Defendant. Third, it is unclear to what plans Defendant refers in its third category of documents. If Defendant is referring to Leprino's plan to modify the Waverly silo, all such non-privileged documents responsive to that issue have already been produced to Defendant's counsel.
In short, Leprino has produced any non-privileged documents responsive to the Motion to Compel even though no Rule 34 requests were ever propounded to Leprino for such documents.
On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff's counsel conferred again with representatives of Leprino and confirmed that all non-privileged responsive documents to the Motion to Compel have been produced.
WHEREFORE, no order compelling production is necessary, and Defendant’s Motion to Compel should be denied.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of May, 2006.
CAMPBELL BOHN KILLIN BRITTAN & RAY, LLC
By:
s/ Bret M. Heidemann Michael G. Bohn Bret M. Heidemann 270 St. Paul Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80206 Telephone: (303) 322-3400 Facsimile: (303) 322-5800 mbohn@campbellbohn.com bheidemann@campbellbohn.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY
Page 3
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 109
Filed 05/05/2006
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Document 95) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Catherine A. Tallerico, Esq. at c_tallerico@fsf-law.com
s/ Jing Yeng Lim Jing Yeng Lim, Paralegal
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 109
Filed 05/05/2006
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 03-cv-2461-MSK-MEH
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELDMEIER EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Document 95)
Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company (“Leprino” or “Plaintiff”), through its counsel,
states the following in opposition to Defendant’s “Motion to Compel Discovery” (“Motion
to Compel”). Defendant's Motion to Compel is moot and must be denied.
The Motion to Compel seeks the following three categories of documents: (1) a
request for bid to numerous silo manufacturers, responses of manufacturers and an
"Approval for Expenditure"; (2) a project file; and (3) plans for modification.
(See,
Motion to Compel at pp. 1-2.) While Defendant never made a proper Rule 34 request
for the production of those documents, any and all non-privileged documents
responsive to Defendant's Motion to Compel have been produced already.
First, any non-privileged documents in the possession of Leprino that were
responsive to the first category of documents identified above were copied and mailed
to Defendant's counsel on or about September 8, 2005. Second, the project file, to the
PDF Page 3
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 109
Filed 05/05/2006
Page 2 of 3
extent any documents can be considered included in such a designation, has already
been produced to Defendant. Third, it is unclear to what plans Defendant refers in its
third category of documents. If Defendant is referring to Leprino's plan to modify the
Waverly silo, all such non-privileged documents responsive to that issue have already
been produced to Defendant's counsel.
In short, Leprino has produced any non-privileged documents responsive to the
Motion to Compel even though no Rule 34 requests were ever propounded to Leprino
for such documents.
On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff's counsel conferred again with
representatives of Leprino and confirmed that all non-privileged responsive documents
to the Motion to Compel have been produced.
WHEREFORE, no order compelling production is necessary, and Defendant’s
Motion to Compel should be denied.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of May, 2006.
CAMPBELL BOHN KILLIN BRITTAN & RAY, LLC
By:
s/ Bret M. Heidemann
Michael G. Bohn
Bret M. Heidemann
270 St. Paul Street, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80206
Telephone: (303) 322-3400
Facsimile: (303) 322-5800
mbohn@campbellbohn.com
bheidemann@campbellbohn.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 109
Filed 05/05/2006
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May 2006, I electronically filed the
foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Document 95) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Catherine A. Tallerico, Esq. at c_tallerico@fsf-law.com
s/ Jing Yeng Lim
Jing Yeng Lim, Paralegal
3
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
