Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al

Filing 165

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/3/13 ORDERING that on 9/25/13, the undersigned issued an order partially granting plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to interrogatories from defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. (&qu ot;defendant"). (Order, ECF No. 163 .) That order failed to give a precise deadline by which defendant must provide its supplemental responses in accordance with the order. Accordingly, the undersigned clarifies that, to the extent his order of 9/25/13, required defendant to provide supplemental responses, such responses are due 30 (thirty) days from the date of the issuance of that order. The order did not address the "contact information" to be provided in the case of former employees who can still be reached through defendant's counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned clarifies that defendant need not provide individual addresses and phone numbers for defendant's former employees to the extent such former emplo yees can still be reached through defendant's counsel. If any former employees cannot be reached through defendant's counsel, however, defendant shall provide the former employee's last known telephone number and address. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNLY R. BECKER, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-02799 TLN KJN PS

v.

ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On September 25, 2013, the undersigned issued an order partially granting plaintiff’s

17
18

motion to compel further responses to interrogatories from defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc.

19

(“defendant”).1 (Order, ECF No. 163.) That order failed to give a precise deadline by which

20

defendant must provide its supplemental responses in accordance with the order. Accordingly,

21

the undersigned clarifies that, to the extent his order of September 25, 2013, required defendant to

22

provide supplemental responses, such responses are due 30 (thirty) days from the date of the

23

issuance of that order.
Similarly, the undersigned’s order of September 25, 2013, provided that:

24

The parties are also ordered to meet and confer to ascertain whether
alternate name spellings may reveal the correct identity of the
witness plaintiff identified as “Carl Saris.” Similarly, defendant is
ordered to provide contact information for individuals identified in

25
26
27
28

1

This action proceeds before this court pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

defendant’s records as having communicated with plaintiff about
his requested modification(s) during the time period alleged in the
operative pleading, even if such individuals are not specifically
identified within Interrogatory No. 1. However, such “contact
information” need not include home addresses or other information
for defendant’s current employees, so long as those employees may
be reached through defense counsel.

1
2
3
4
5

(ECF NO. 163 at 20.) The order did not address the “contact information” to be provided in the

6

case of former employees who can still be reached through defendant’s counsel. Accordingly, the

7

undersigned clarifies that defendant need not provide individual addresses and phone numbers for

8

defendant’s former employees to the extent such former employees can still be reached through

9

defendant’s counsel. If any former employees cannot be reached through defendant’s counsel,

10

however, defendant shall provide the former employee’s last known telephone number and

11

address.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: October 3, 2013

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2