Adoma v. The University of Phoenix, Inc. et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/21/2010 ORDERING 65 , 88 Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents, set one, filed is GRANTED in PART; Within 28 days of this order, dfts shall produce discovery requests and responses as limited to interrogatories and requests for admission only; pltfs shall share the costs of this production with dfts insofar as hard copy costs are involved; pltfs' 68 , 89 motion to compel production of documents, set two, is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal for good cause shown after pltfs have taken a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (Reader, L)

Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc. et al

Doc. 93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 If the district court or the Ninth Circuit issues a stay of this action, discovery activities would cease immediately, but not until such an order has issued. 1
Dockets.Justia.com
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DIANE ADOMA, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC. et al., Defendants. / Presently before the court are two amended motions to compel discovery filed by plaintiffs on August 26, 2010 (Docket #s 76 and 77.) The parties filed joint statements on September 13, 2010, and appeared telephonically for hearing on September 16, 2010. Megan Ross Hutchins appeared for plaintiffs. Jason Mills represented defendants. Having reviewed the stipulations and heard oral argument, the court now issues the following summary order. For the reasons stated at hearing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents, set one, filed August 4, 2010, as amended on September 13, 2010, (dkt. #s 65, 88), is granted in part.1 Within twentyeight (28) days of this order, defendants shall produce discovery requests and responses as limited to interrogatories and requests for admission only, in the following cases: Sabol v. Apollo Group, No. 2:09CV03439-JCJ, Davis v. University of Phoenix, No. 8.09CV2971ORDER No. CIV S-10-0059 LKK GGH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T26AEP, Juric v. University of Phoenix, No. 09CV3214-OWD-JWJx, and Tratichita v. Apollo Group, Inc., No. 1:09CV4873. Plaintiffs shall share the costs of this production with defendants insofar as hard copy costs are involved. 2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents, set two, filed August 11, 2010, as amended on September 13, 2010, (dkt. #s 68, 89), is denied without prejudice to its renewal for good cause shown after plaintiffs have taken a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. DATED: September 21, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
GGH:076/Adoma0059.dsy2.wpd

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2