Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. v. Healtheon, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

August 31, 2018

LAYNE HEAVY CIVIL, INC.
v.
HEALTHEON, INC.

         SECTION: “A” (4)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          KAREN WELLS ROBY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Discovery (R. Doc. 37) filed by the Plaintiff Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. seeking to compel Defendant Healtheon, Inc. to provide responsive answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1-7 and 10-12. The motion is opposed. R. Doc. 42. Oral argument was heard on August 15, 2018.

         I. Background

         This action was originally filed in the District Court on September 22, 2018. R. Doc. 1. Healtheon was the prime contractor under a contract with NASA related to construction at the John C. Stennis Space Center. R. Doc. 1, p. 2. In August 2013, Layne entered into a subcontract (“Contract”) with Healtheon to perform work at the Space Center. Id. The Contract between Healtheon and Layne concerned constructing a new 96-inch pipeline to feed water to NASA's upgraded rocket engine test stands. Layne's scope was to construct the 96-inch pipeline. Id. Following the completion of the pipeline, Layne filed this action and alleged that Healtheon has withheld $1.3 million in payment owed from the Contract.

         At this time, Layne has filed a motion to compel Healtheon to provide complete discovery responses to its Interrogatories. R. Doc. 37. Layne originally propounded its first set of Interrogatories on March 23, 2018, and their second set on April 16, 2018. R. Doc. 37-5.

         Healtheon responded with objections to all requests on April 24, 2018, and May 16, 2018, respectively. Id. On May 24, 2018, Layne and Healtheon conferred by e-mail regarding Healtheon's objections to the first two sets of Interrogatories. R. Doc. 37-8. Layne requested in this e-mail that Healtheon provide responsive answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1-7 and 10-12. Id.

         On June 28, 2018, Healtheon responded with its First Supplemental and Amended Responses. R. Doc. 37-6. The Supplemental and Amended Responses raised further objections. Id. Layne conferred with Healtheon again via e-mail on June 28, 2018, stating that the First Supplemental and Amended Responses had still inadequately answered Interrogatory Nos. 1-7 and 10-12. R. Doc. 37-8. In the same e-mail Layne told Healtheon that it considered its Rule 37(a) obligations fulfilled. Id.

         Healtheon has opposed the motion. R. Doc. 42. Healtheon argues that Layne has not fulfilled its Rule 37(a) obligations, that Interrogatory Nos. 1-7 and 10-11 are premature contention interrogatories, and that Interrogatory Nos. 11-12 are vague and ambiguous.

         II. Standard of Review

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 33 allows a party to serve another party written interrogatories which, “must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3).

         Rule 26(b)(1) provides that parties may obtain discovery regarding relevant information to any claim or defense as long as it is nonprivileged. Rule 26(b)(1) specifies that “[i]nformation within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discovered.” Rule 26(b)(1) also specifies that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the important of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37 provides that “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if: ... (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or (iv) a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted-or fails to permit inspection-as requested under Rule 34.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). An “evasive or incomplete” answer or production is treated the same as a complete failure to answer or produce. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).

         A motion to compel under Rule 37(a) must also “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.