Treaty Energy Corp. (fka TECO)

[tdbowieknife]

I still find this order and reasons for clown lawyer Henry Klein's motion denial hilarious...

A few snippets...

Indeed, the only objection to the content of the answers they did receive was to note they were “infuriating!!!” Id. at 4 n.3 (emphasis in original).

They attached the allegedly deficient discovery
responses with certain responses circled by hand. Instead of providing the specific objections demanded by the Court, the memorandum explains merely that counsel had marked “the actual
non-responses” and that, to determine the sufficiency of the SEC’s responses, “the easiest way” would be for the Court to review them.

On March 2, 2017, the Blackburn Defendants filed a Request for Hearing. (Rec. Doc. 167). The Request is seven pages long, primarily complains that the SEC’s allegations are baseless, and is essentially an attempt to file a second supplemental memorandum in support of the Blackburn Defendants’ Motion to Compel, without leave of Court. However, the Request similarly fails to provide any specific reason why this Court should find that the SEC’s interrogatory responses are deficient, or any reason why oral argument might help resolve the matter.

On March 4, 2017, again without leave of Court, the Blackburn Defendants filed a 154 page Supplement to Pending Discovery Matters. (Rec. Doc. 171). The Blackburn Defendants
attach copies of the regulations they are alleged to have violated and argue that the SEC has failed to provide a factual basis for the violations. Id. at 2. The Blackburn Defendants’ Supplement does not explain why each of the circled interrogatory responses are deficient.

The Blackburn Defendants have had numerous opportunities to explain to the Court why the SEC’s responses to each of their first 25 interrogatories2 is deficient: in the initial motion and
memorandum in support, in the telephone conference held with the undersigned, and in the five page supplemental memorandum. Without leave of Court the Blackburn Defendants have made
three further filings with the Court. Yet they have still failed to explain the deficiency of each discovery response with any detail. Moreover, the Court finds that the SEC’s responses are sufficient. The SEC has produced its entire, non-privileged investigative file. Several of the circled discovery responses contain specific, substantive responses. Those that do not contain substantive responses instead reference the Amended Complaint, which contains 116 very detailed, specific allegations. Further, the Blackburn Defendants brought this matter to the Court less than two weeks prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline. They offer no explanation for this delay except that they were waiting to see how the case went. To complain that discovery responses are insufficient seven months after receiving them and on the eve of the discovery deadline is untimely. To then provide the Court, and one’s opponent, with insufficient detail as to the alleged deficiencies is fatal.

Conclusion Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2015cv02451/167525/177/0.pdf?ts=1488971681



;;