Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD.United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.
July 29, 2008
ORDER
JAMES MUIRHEAD, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with his third request for production and with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). Defendant objected to each request as “overly broad, unduly burdensome and (as seeking) information that is not discoverable . . .” The responses were timely delivered. The requests are considered below.
Requests 1, 6 and 7. Plaintiff states that these requests have been made before and were intended to seek supplementation. Defendant argues that since she is aware of Rule 26(e), the requests are unnecessary. Plaintiff is entitled to either supplementation or a straight-forward statement that there are no supplementary documents. Defendant is ordered to provide one or the other.
Page 2
Request no. 2. Defendant is ordered to provide the records offered or to state that there are none.
Request no. 3. Defendant is ordered to provide all Arvest account records directly or indirectly related to the 67 cases or to clearly state that there are none.
Request no. 4. Granted.
Request no. 5. Denied as plaintiff has not shown why the information is discoverable.
Document no. 145. Granted in part, denied in part as set forth above.
SO ORDERED.