Thompson v. Intermodal Cartage Co., LLC., 2:24-cv-00034

Plaintiffs Cameron Thompson and Kellie Nelson filed a motion to compel discovery against Intermodal Cartage Co., LLC (IMC) and Julian Davis, seeking further production of documents related to a vehicular collision involving Davis while employed by IMC.
The parties previously attempted to resolve their discovery disputes through a telephonic conference but failed to reach agreement, leading to the present formal motion.
Plaintiffs requested IMC and Davis produce various categories of documents, including personnel records, training materials, accident files, communication records, and contracts relevant to Davis’s employment and the accident.
The court found procedural issues with Plaintiffs’ briefing, noting non-compliance with local page limits, but chose to address the merits and admonished Plaintiffs for future compliance.
The court analyzed each disputed request, evaluating the scope, relevance, and proportionality under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issued a mixed ruling—granting some requests in part and denying others.
The order required defendants to supplement certain responses by a specified deadline while denying requests deemed overly broad, irrelevant, or duplicative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and specificity of document production	Defendants failed to identify Bates numbers assoc. with document responses	IMC claims documents were identified/supplemented per usual course of business	Defendants must further organize and label responsive docs
Production of employment/training documents	Not all safety/training and hiring docs produced, esp. about cell phone use	All relevant handbooks/manuals on cellphone use already produced	Any missing doc (e.g., "one-page" hiring/retention doc) must be produced
Accident claim files	IMC holds claim files not disclosed, per 30(b)(6) witness testimony	All accident reports and dashcam video have been produced, no committee exists	IMC must supplement with any accident claim file documentation
Request for employment contracts and telematics agreements	IMC has not disclosed contracts covering Davis or telematics providers	Telematics contracts not relevant; some insurance docs produced	IMC must produce contracts active during the crash, incl. employment contracts

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (Defines broad relevance standard for discovery under federal rules)
McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir. 1990) (Party opposing discovery must specify reasons for objection)