Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Derryberry v. St. Joseph Bank & Trust Co. (In re Hartley)
Citations: 45 B.R. 543; 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 4495; 12 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 796Docket: Bankruptcy No. 81-01855; Adv. No. 83-0749
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio; December 6, 1984; Us Bankruptcy; United States Bankruptcy Court
The court addressed multiple motions concerning discovery in a bankruptcy case, specifically focusing on the plaintiff/trustee's request for document production, the defendant's (St. Joseph Bank) motions for protective orders, and the status of discovery as mandated by a previous court order. The court ruled that St. Joseph Bank must provide the requested documents without charging for the search costs, while the plaintiff is responsible for any copying expenses. The plaintiff's representative is permitted to review the defendant's documents with the stipulation that confidentiality is maintained regarding unrelated information. The court emphasized the broad and liberal interpretation of discovery under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing access to any relevant material. It noted that logistical challenges in record-keeping do not excuse non-compliance with discovery requests. However, the right to discovery is not unlimited; protective orders can be issued to prevent undue burden or overly broad requests. The court referenced the Isaac case as an example where a discovery request was deemed excessively broad and not relevant, illustrating limits to the scope of permissible discovery. The court established a two-part test for issuing a protective order: it should be granted when a plaintiff fails to show reasonable grounds for their allegations, and when the defendant faces substantial discovery costs. In this case, the court found that the trustee's claims were not as baseless as those in a referenced case (Isaac), and the discovery costs were not excessive enough to warrant a protective order. The court clarified that costs related to a party’s record-keeping should not solely determine the issuance of such orders. Initial claims of extreme costs to the defendant, which could have shifted some burden to the plaintiff, were reassessed due to new evidence indicating that the burden was no longer significant. Consequently, the court upheld the principle of liberal discovery and ordered that the plaintiff would only be responsible for copying costs of selected documents, while the defendant would handle the document search and production. The bank's request for a protective order to safeguard customer confidentiality was partially granted, tailored to protect unrelated third parties. The court ordered the plaintiff to file modified interrogatories, and established timelines for responses from both parties. The plaintiff is allowed one representative during the document search, with strict confidentiality restrictions regarding information obtained. Additionally, the plaintiff must respond to the defendant's interrogatories and produce a memorandum opposing the defendant's motion by specified deadlines. Finally, a prior order that had stayed all discovery was vacated.