Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MV 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LONDON AT LEX:NGTOH LESLIE G WHKMER CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-638-KKC CLERK U S D\$TRkCi COURT LAUREL KNUCKLES SWILLEY, PLAINTIFF V. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DEFENDANTS JEFFREY R. TIPTON, ET AL., * * * * * * * * * *
This matter is before the court on motion of the plaintiff, pro se, styled “blotion Fox Emedited Order Compelling Defendants to Provide Further Answers to Interropatories and Requests [DE #36], which is accompanied by a supporting memorandum law PE #37], f m L both o f which were filed on September 12,2005. Defendants have filed no response to this motion to compel’, and the time for responding thereto has expired. Thus, this matter ripe for review.
The resolution of this discovery dispute requires the court to examine each discovery request which plaintiff believes has been inadequately answered or responded to by defendants and which is the subject the instant motion to compel. considering this matter, the Magistrate Judge is mindful of the scope of discovery permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, subsequent to amendment thereto, which permits “discovery regarding matter, not privileged, relevant to the claim
Pursuant to numerical paragraph of the Scheduling Order entered herein on April 12, all discovery disputes were referred to Magistrate Judge J. B. Johnson, Jr., for resolution. [DE #11]. Subsequently, by Order April 26,2005, Magistrate Judge J. B. Johnson, Jr., recused himself from further service herein, reassigned this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. D E # 131.
* However, on September 29,2005, defendants filed a response [DE #44] a related motion, plaintiff‘s motion styled “Motion For Expedited Order Enforce Supbeonas rsicl Duces Tecum And Compel Comdiance bv K. Roberts and Me1 issa K. Barton” [DE #34], which concerns discovery (the production-of documents) from non-parties. Based on defendants’ response, on October 13,2005, plaintiffs motion concerning enforcement of subpoenas issued to said non-parties was denied moot. Thus, it appears that defendants’ response filed on September 29, 2005, also pertains, at least in part, plaintiffs motion compel discovery from defendants. *2 or defense of any party, . . . ” The disputed Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents defendants’ responses thereto are set out below. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
A.
INTERROGATORY NO.
Please state the factual, legal andor ethical reasons underlying your belief that defendants or any partner or associate the defendants’ law firm represented andor established an attorney/client relationship with the following individuals andor entities: the Plaintiff; the Estate of Ruth H. Knuckles; Estate Loubell Hoe; the Estate of Grant F. Knuckles; the Ruth Hoe Knuckles Family Limited Partnership; the Mary Madeline Roberts Irrevocable Trust; the Ruth Whitcomb Knuckles Trust; Knuckles Roberts; Melissa Knuckles Barton; Ruth Whitcomb Knuckles and Bruce Barton. formulating your answerts) please include but do not limit same the following information:
a. A detailed description of the date, time and place at which said representation wadwas not entered into; b. The individuals present, who had knowledge of, who authorized who participated in representation under the terms and conditions said agreements; c. The nature and terms of each such agreement and the extent which the defendants andor their law agreed represent the above named individuals andor entities; d. The nature and terms of fee agreements with any the above named individuals andfor entities; e. The nature and amounts of any billshnvoices for legal services incurred whether and by whom same were paid, attaching copies of all such bills and sources payment; f. The duration and cunent status representation and, if terminated, the date and means by which said representation terminated; g. Any and all written documentation, memoranda, witnesses, transcripts, recordings a d o r other data which memorialize the events and occasions detailed herein.
ANSWER. Ruth Hoe Knuckles Familv Limited twtnershio; Estate of Ruth H. Knuckles. Marv Madeline Roberts Irrevocable Trust : Ruth Whitcomb Knu clcleq Trust: Kn ucWes R oberts: Melissa Kn uckles Barton:
a. Jeffery R. Tipton was hired at Corbin, Kentucky by Susan Roberts and Melissa Barton represent the above entities and persons. I was hired represent Estates on various matters beginning in 1999 through the present date. *3 b. Susan Roberts and MelissaKnuckIes. Jeffery R. Tipton is the o d y attorney in his who has actively represented the entities and persons.
c. The defendant agreed to represent the Estate. for a rate of $70.00 per house [sic] plus out pocket expenses. The defendant has represented the above entities persons in Bell District Court and Bell Circuit Court.
d. See answer to c. above.
e. The plaintiff may review said bills and invoices at a time convenient for the parties. The plaintiff may copy said invoices at her expenses. Said invoices and bills have previously been provided to plaintiff. f. Said representation began in 1999 and is currently continuing. g. The defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. See Answer to e. above. The defendant has never represented Bruce Barton in litigation, nor has the defendant represented the Estate of Loubell Hoe or the Estate Grant F. Knuckles. The defendant has obtained monies for plaintiff and Ruth Whitcomb Knuckles in the sense that proceeds have been procured h m partition land suits which the plaintiff and Ruth Whitcomb Knuckles received benefit from. support her motion compel defendant to supplement No. plaintiff asserts that the foregoing answer deficient that it fails to state “the factual, legal
andor ethical reasons underlying your belief that defendants . . . represented or established an attomey/client relationship with the following individuals entities: . . .” Plaintiff also notes that while defendant stated that he began representing the Estates in 1999, it is unclear when he undertook to represent the FLP, trusts, K. Roberts, and Melissa K. Barton. Plaintiff also argues defendant’s answer vague as to the nature and terms and conditions concerning the engagement and fee agreements with the named clients and sources of payment of fees.
Defendant’s answer states that he was employed by Roberts Melissa Barton represent these entities and persons and that he hired represent the Estates on various matters, at the rate of $70.00 per hour, beginning in through the present date, and that he has represented “the above entities and persons in Bell District Court and Bell Circuit Court.”
Plaintiff correctly notes that while defendant states that he was hired “to represent the Estates on various matters beginning in through the present date,” defendant does not state when he was employed represent the FLP, the Trusts, K. Roberts, and Melissa K. Barton. Defendant’s answer also omits the sources payment of his fees. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to compel will be granted to the extent that defendant is directed to supplement answer to to clarify when he employed to represent the FLP, the Trusts, K. Roberts, and Melissa K. Barton, and state the sources of payment of fees.
INTERROGATORY NO.
For each and every individual andor entity represented by the Defendant as identified above the preceding Interrogatory Number your Answer [sic] please provide and identify the following:
a. The name each every attorney who provided services each said individual;
b. The specific dates, time, location, and length and nature ofcontact; c. The specific nature of legal advice, legal assistance, counseling or legal services provided the individual or entity; d. The extent services provided to the individuals andor entities; e. Any and all written documentation, memoranda, witnesses, transcripts, recordings andlor other data which memorialize the events and occasions detailed herein. ANSWER:
a. Jeffery Ti ton 404 Roy Ki B d Avenue
P.O. Box 1284
Corbin, KY 40702
606-528-1 166 My representation began in and still continues. b. I represented the individuals and entities in litigation and in c. issues dealing with the legal requirements of the administration the Estate, Family Limited Partnership and Trusts. d. See c. above.
e. The plaintiff may review all items referenced herein which are not protected by the attorney/client privilege and the defendant so objects. A time and place for such review can be arranged by contacting the defendants’ counsel. Copies of legal pleadings can be obtained f?om the Bell Circuit and District Court.
In support her motion to compel defendant to supplement answer Interrogatory No. plaintiff asserts that the foregoing answer is incomplete, non-specific, evasive, and inadequate in that it failed “to detail the dates, time, location, length and nature contact with the individuals identified as well the ‘nature of legal advice, legal assistance, counseling or legd services provided the individual or entity’ represented by the Defendants and identified in the preceding Interrogatory No. 2.”
The Magistrate Judge unpersuaded by plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s answer to No. 3 is incomplete, non-specific, evasive, and inadequate. Interrogatory No. is overly broad and unduly burdensome the extent plaintiffrequests detailed information about each instance in which defendant has represented the individuals and entities from to the present time. Defendant’s response that he “represented the individuals entities in litigation and in issues dealing with the legd requirements of the administration of the Estate, Family Limited Partnership, and Trusts,’’ sufficient. Plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to supplement his lnterrogatory will be denied.
INTERROGATORY NO.
Please state the factual, legal andor ethical reasons underlying your belief that defendants or any partner or associate the defendants’ law did not represent or establish an attomey/client relationship with the following individuals and/or entities: the Plaintie the Estate of Ruth H. Knuckles; Estate Loubell Hoe; the Estate of Grant F. Knuckles; the Ruth Hoe Knuckles Family Limited Partnership; the Mary Madeline Roberts Irrevocable Trust; Ruth Whitcomb Knuckles Trust; SusanKnuckIes Roberts; MelissaKnuckles Barton; Ruth Whitcomb Knuckles and Bruce Barton. formulating your answer@) please include but do not limit same to the following information:
a. A detailed description the date, time place at which said representation was declined terminated, *6 b. The individuals present, who had knowledge of, who authorized or who participated in any agreement to declining terminating representation;
c. The nature and terms of each such agreement and the extent to which the defendants and/or their law f m represented the above named individuals and/or entities prior to termination; d. The nature and terms of fee agreements with any of above named individuals andor entities; e. The nature and amounts any billshvoices for legal services incurred and whether and by whom same were paid, attaching copies all such bills sources payment; f. The duration and current status ofrepresentation and, ifterminated, the date and means by which said representation was terminated; g. Any and all Written documentation, memoranda, witnesses, transcripts, recordings and/or other data which memorialize the events and occasions detailed herein.
ANSWER See Answer to Interrogatory #2 above.
As grounds for her motion to compel defendant to supplement his answer to Interrogatory No. 4, plaintiff asserts that the foregoing answer is non-responsive. Plaintiff notes that while No. and Interrogatory No. 4 refer to the same individuals and entities, the information requested by Interrogatory No. is different from the information requested by Interrogatory No. 4; therefore, defendant’s response “See Answer to Interrogatory #2 above” does not answer the question asked by Interrogatory No. 4.
Defendant’s answer to Interrogatory reflects that Jeffery R. Tipton hired at Corbin, Kentucky, by Roberts and Melissa Barton represent the above entities and persons beginning in I999 and continuing through the present date and Jeffery Tipton is the only attorney in his firm who has actively represented the entities and persons. Since defendant states that he only attorney in law firm who has represented the above-referenced individuals and entities, beginning in the inverse orthat that no other attorney in law firm has ever represented these same individuals and entities. Further, if no other attorney defendant’s law ever represented these individuals entities, it follows that there would be no documentation *7 memorialize a decision to decline representation or the t e d t i o n of representation of representation that never existed. Thus, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant’s present answer Interrogatory No. 4 essentially answers questionby referring plaintiffto answer to Interrogatory 2. Forthese reasons, plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to supplement answer to Interrogatory No. will be denied.
INTERROGATORY NO. Please state the factual and legal status of the entity identified and/or
described ‘TIPTON AND TIPTON, Attorneys at Law.” In formulating your answer please include but do not limit same to the following information: a. The date, time, location, structure, duration and persons
participating in the formulatiodorganization of “TIPTON AND TIPTON, Attorneys at Law;”
b. The members, employees, agents, servants andor officers of “TIPTON AND TIPTON, Attorneys at Law;” C. The means by which a managing, senior, administrative, tax, or controlling partner, member, associate, or officer of “TIPTON AND TIPTON, Attorneys at Law” selected andor designated; d. The name of the individual identified in subsection (c) immediately above and the specific nature and extent authority of conferred upon same;
e. The identify [sic] ofthe individual(s) who manage the daily affairs and operation andor any division of labor/authority of “TPTON AND TIPTON, Attorneys at Law.” ANSWER
a. Tipton & Tipton Attorneys at Law a law partnership consisting of Wesley R. Tipton and Jeffery R. Tipton. The law firm was established May, 1991. Its only ofice is located at Roy Kidd Avenue, Corbin, Kentucky 40701 b. Members: Jefiey Tipton and Wesley R. Tipton. EmpIoyees: Linda Neveis, Faye Boggs, Vanessa Pile, Wendy McKnight, Kelly Lowe, Mary Ann Smith Rush, Lynn Tipton, and Jim Mays.
c. Jeff Wes manage the firm jointly.
d. Jeff and Wes manage the firm jointly.
e. See Answer c. As grounds for her motion to compel defendant to supplement Interrogatory No. plaintiff argues that defendant’s answer:
does not provide factual and legal basis for ascertaining the status, management, and administration of the firm Tipton & Tipton. Further, the answer does not provide any insight into the exercise or delegation of authority necessary to the management and administration the partnership.
M M , p . - DE #37.
A common sense reading defendant’s answer to Interrogatory No. leads to the 10&d conclusion that all aspects management and administration, including day-to-day operations, of law partnership of Tipton and Tipton are jointly performed by its only two partners, Jeffrey R. Tipton and Wesley Tipton. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge concludes that defendant’s answer to this sufficient. Thus, plaintiff smotionto compel defendant to supplement his answer to Interrogatory will be denied.
m R R O G A T O R Y NO. Describe in detail factual and legal bases and source($ of your authority
to represent, counsel and/or advise the Ruth H. Knuckles Family Limited Partnership individually and a component of the Estate of Ruth H. Knuckles as the management [oQ assets liabilities of the estate and of the family limited partnership. formulating your answer@) please include but do not limit same the following information:
a. The person@) authorized to retain and compensate you for services
b. The source@) compensation including method of payment c. The establishment, maintenance, and distribution of proceeds of banking and securities accounts other assets.
ANSWER:
a. We were retained by Roberts and Melissa Barton. b. We bill ow time on a hourly basis for legal services provided. Susan Roberts pays our bill on a monthly basis.
c. Tipton and Tipton have never been involved in the establishment, maintenance and distribution of proceeds of banking or security accounts or other assets of the Estate Trust except regarding legal issues. Tipton & Tipton have never been involved in the management of assets or liabilities of entities referenced in this Interrogatory.
As grounds for her motion compel defendant to supplement his answer to Interrogatory No. plaintiff argues that defendant’s answer is insufficient in that it:
fails to provide the source of funding for fees and method of compensation. The answer is ambiguous. It states that Susan Roberts pays the bill and leads the logical question: How does she pay the bill? Does she expend monies from her own pocket? Does she segregate Estate and FLP billings or are they commingled? Memorandum in Suuuort Motion for ExDedited Or deg,p. - DE #37.
Plaintiff also argues that defendant’s description of services and advice provided to the entities is ambiguous in that he failed to identify detail the factual and legal basis for his answer denying involvement management of assets, liabilities, banking and security accounts, except for legal issues.
Plaintiff correct that defendant’s answer does not specify the source ofpayment his fees. Although defendant states that Roberts pays the law bill on a monthly basis, he does not state whether the source of payment is from Roberts, individually, or whether the source of payment is &om the Estate or the FLP. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge concludes defendant should supplement his answer specifically identify the source of payment law firm’s monthly bill that is paid by Susan Roberts. Additionally, defendant should also clarify that answer to subpart (c) of this Interrogatory concerning the exception “regarding legal issues.”
B. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS responding to plaintiff‘s Document Request Nos. 1-6 on July 8,2005, defendant stated as follows:
PESPONSE;: The documents requested by the plaintiff may be reviewed copied at a time agreed upon by the parties. Copies can be made at the expense the *10 plaintiff. The defendant objects to providing the plaintiff with any document protected by the attorney client privilege.
Subsequently, on September 29,2005, defendant advised the court, in respondingto arelated motion [DE #44], that he had obtained permission from his clients, K. Roberts and Melissa K. Barton, to provide plaintiff with documents responsive to plaintiffs discovery requests that otherwise would be exempt from disclosure by reason of the attorney/client privilege. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge concludes that after his clients waived their attorney/client privilege in respect to the documents in question, defendant has since produced those documents that he had originally objected to producing and that plaintiff3 motion to compel the production of documents is now moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff spro se motion styled “Motion For Expedited Order ComDeIling Defendants to Provide Further Answers to Interrogatories and R eauests for Production” P E #36] is GRANTED IN PART DENIED IN PART, follows:
a. plaintif€’s motion to compel GRANTED to the extent that defendant is directed supplement his answer to Interrogatory No. to clarify when he was employed to represent the FLP, Trusts, K. Roberts, and Melissa K. Barton, to state the sources of payment his fees;
b. plaintiffs motion to compel is GRANTED to extent that defendant is directed to supplement answer to Interrogatory specifically identie the source payment his law firm’s monthly bill is paid by Susan Roberts and clarify subpart (c) of this Interrogatory concerning the exception ‘’regarding legal issues.”
c. plaintiff’s motion compeI is DENIED as to Nos. 4, and 5, and defendant need not supplement his answers thereto.
d. plaintiffs motion to compel the production documents responsive Request Nos. 1-6 [DE #36] DENIED AS MOOT.
c. plaintiffs motion to compel is DENIED Nos. 3, 4, and and
defendant need not supplement answers thereto.
d. plaintiffs motion compel the production ofdocuments responsive Request Nos. 1-6
[DE #36] DENIED AS MOOT.
2. Defendant directed supplement answers Interrogatory Nos. within ten
(10) days date of this Order.
This lg@ day of November, 2005, n