The Arc of California, et al v. Douglas, et al

Filing 162

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/2/14 ORDERING Plaintiff has failed to make a particularized showing as to the need for interrogatories in addition to the interrogatories previously propounded. Plaintiffs motion for leav e to exceed the presumptive limit on the number of interrogatories 149 , except as set forth below, is therefore denied; Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion to compel further response to interrogatory no. 8; Plaintiffs motion to compel 149 i s granted in part. Within fourteen days, defendants shall provide further responses to: request for admission nos. 8 and 9; interrogatory no. 1 as to any denial of requests for admissions nos. 8 and 9; interrogatory nos. 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 to the extent these interrogatories call for information pertaining to the uniform holiday schedule and half-day billing rule; and interrogatory no. 10; Defendant shall supplement the responses to requests for production of documents to clarify whether any responsive documents exist that pertain to the uniform holiday schedule and half-day billing rule; The remainder of the motion to compel is denied; The court finds in the circumstances presented on the motion that an award of expenses is not warranted. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARC OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2545 MCE CKD

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

TOBY DOUGLAS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel came on regularly for hearing on October 1, 2014. Chad

18

Carlock appeared for plaintiffs. Grant Lien appeared for defendants. Upon review of the

19

documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause

20

appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

21

1. Plaintiff has failed to make a particularized showing as to the need for interrogatories

22

in addition to the interrogatories previously propounded. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to exceed

23

the presumptive limit on the number of interrogatories (ECF No. 149), except as set forth below,

24

is therefore denied.

25

2. Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion to compel further response to interrogatory no. 8.

26

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 149) is granted in part. Within fourteen days,

27
28

defendants shall provide further responses to:
a. request for admission nos. 8 and 9;
1

1

b. interrogatory no. 1 as to any denial of requests for admissions nos. 8 and 9;

2

interrogatory nos. 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 to the extent these interrogatories call for

3

information pertaining to the uniform holiday schedule and half-day billing rule; and

4

interrogatory no. 10.

5

c. Defendant shall supplement the responses to requests for production of

6

documents to clarify whether any responsive documents exist that pertain to the uniform

7

holiday schedule and half-day billing rule.

8

The remainder of the motion to compel is denied.

9

4. The court finds in the circumstances presented on the motion that an award of expenses

10

is not warranted.

11

Dated: October 2, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14

4 arccal2.oah

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