Adams v. TDC General Contractors LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
REUBEN L. ADAMS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:22-cv-04110
TDC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LLC 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion for Protection Order with Respect to
Defendant’s September 19, 2023 Notice of Inspection. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed its Motion (ECF
No. 20) on September 26, 2023 requesting modified parameters to Defendant’s Notice of Inspection.
On October 3, 2023, Defendant responded. 	ECF No. 23. 	The Court finds the matter ripe for
consideration.
In Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion for Protection Order (ECF No. 20), Plaintiff requests the
Court to order the following parameters with respect to the inspection: (1) designate one of the five
apartments for inspection; (2) advise Plaintiff regarding this designation at least three days before the
inspection is to start; (3) provide that Defendant is responsible for any inspection damage; (4) require
Plaintiff’s prior written consent for any alteration of the property; and (5) require the inspection to
conclude in no more than three hours. ECF No. 20, p. 9.
In Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion for Protection Order (ECF No.
23), Defendant states that it is agreeable to move the inspection to a time prior to October 20, 2023 and
requests that the Court “deny Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion for Protection Order and command
Plaintiff attend an inspection based on the [below] parameters.” 	ECF No. 23, pp. 1, 2. Defendant
requests the following parameters of the inspection: (1) prohibit altering the property in any way
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 25 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
without prior written authorization from Plaintiff with both parties recognizing a second inspection
most likely will be necessary in which alterations are made to the property and said alterations are
agreed upon prior to second inspection; (2) conclusion of inspection within six hours unless
extenuating circumstances require additional time or a second inspection; (3) Defendant is only
responsible for any damage to property caused by or resulting from the inspection by Defendant or its
representatives; (4) interior inspection to a particular apartment Defendant identifies at least three days
prior to inspection and Plaintiff agrees to limit its expert opinions and damages to said particular
apartment; (5) identity of particular apartment for inspection provided to Plaintiff three days before
start of inspection and Plaintiff agrees to limit its expert opinions and damages to said particular
apartment; and (6) identity of each of Defendant’s participants in the inspection by name. Id. at p. 1-
2. The Court agrees with Defendant.
The Parties must agree to and execute an inspection prior to October 20, 2023, with the
following parameters: (1) Defendant must identify one of the five apartments for inspection provided
to Plaintiff three days before start of inspection; (2) Parties must limit their expert opinions and
damages to the identified apartment; (3) Defendant must prohibit altering the property in any way
without prior written authorization from Plaintiff; (4) Defendant is only responsible for any damage to
property caused by or resulting from the inspection by Defendant or its representatives; (5) Defendant
must conclude the inspection within six hours; and (6) Defendant must identify each of its participants
in the inspection by name.
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s Objection 	and 	Motion for 	Protection 	Order 	with 	Respect 	to
Defendant’s September 19, 2023 Notice of Inspection (ECF No. 20) should be and hereby is DENIED
in part and GRANTED in part subject to the aforementioned parameters.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of October, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:22-cv-04110-SOH Document 25 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>