Carlin et al v. DairyAmerica, Inc. et al

Filing 473

ORDER granting in part, and denying in part, defendant California Dairies, Inc.'s Motion to Compel plaintiffs to respond to contention interrogatories in CDI's first set of interrogatories, documents 437 441 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/22/2017. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FRESNO DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. Defendants 17 Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES IN CDI’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Doc. 437, 441) 18 On July 29, 2017, Defendant California Dairies, Inc. (“CDI”) filed a motion to compel 19 Plaintiffs to Respond to Contention Interrogatories in CDI’s First Set of Interrogatories. (ECF No. 20 441). Plaintiffs filed an opposition. (ECF No. 443-5). The Court heard oral argument on this issue, 21 in connection with a hearing to address several discovery motions. (ECF No. 447, 451). 22 CDI’s motion concerns fourteen interrogatories served on Plaintiffs asking for all facts 23 supporting various contentions in Plaintiffs’ complaint. For example, Interrogatory No. 1 asks for 24 “each fact upon with YOU base YOUR allegations in Paragraphs 9, 27, and 105 of the 25 COMPLAINT that “. . . California Dairies . . . conspired to fraudulently misreport NFDM prices to 26 NASS.” 27 28 1 Plaintiffs respond that discovery has partially been stayed in this case. Plaintiffs have not yet 2 conducted a single deposition of a former or current employee of CDI, or of CDI itself. Furthermore, 3 written discovery has been limited to claims already upheld against CDI and do not include 4 additional claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. Even the written discovery 5 regarding current claims has not been resolved and is at issue in a motion to compel CDI to provide 6 further responses. (ECF No. 443-6). The Court also notes that the Fourth Amended Complaint is 7 141 pages and contains significant factual allegations. (ECF No. 380). 8 9 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to 10 fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated 11 discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 33(a)(2). 13 14 15 The Court finds that it would be premature to require Plaintiffs to set forth all facts in support of their claims at this stage in the case. For the reasons discussed below and stated on the record, the Court orders Plaintiffs to 16 respond to CDI’s contention interrogatories set forth in CDI’s First Set of Interrogatories no later 17 than 90 days after the last deposition in this case. 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?