Richard Stafford v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc et al
Filing
116
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/13/15 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 108 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's motion is denied insofar as it seeks to compel defendant to provide a further response, and as to Plaintiff& #039;s request for production number 68 and deposition topic number 5. Plaintiff's motion is granted with regard to its request for an order directing defendant to identify and provide an appropriate witness for continued deposition as to topics 1-4, 7-8 and 11. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD STAFFORD,
12
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-1187-KJM-CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 108, came on regularly for hearing on
18
August 13, 2015. Joseph Jaramillo appeared for plaintiff. Lindbergh Porter appeared for
19
defendant. Upon review of the documents in support, no opposition having been filed, upon
20
hearing the arguments of counsel, upon review of the joint statement regarding discovery
21
disagreement, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS
22
FOLLOWS:
23
1.
Defendant’s initial response to plaintiff’s interrogatory number 19 is fully
24
responsive to that request. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied insofar as it seeks
25
to compel defendant to provide a further response to interrogatory number 19.
26
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with regard to its request for an order
27
directing defendant to identify and provide an appropriate witness for continued deposition as to
28
topics 1-4, 7-8, and 11 set forth in plaintiff’s Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant
1
1
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.’s Agent Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendant is directed to
2
identify and provide an appropriate witness for deposition as to these topics by no later than
3
September 15, 2015. If defendant believes in good faith that it cannot comply with this order by
4
the above date, then it may request an extension upon a showing of good cause for why it could
5
not identify and provide an appropriate witness for deposition before the ordered deadline and
6
that it has obtained a further extension of the discovery deadline from the assigned District Judge
7
for the limited purpose of taking such a deposition.
8
3.
Counsel for both parties stated in the parties’ joint statement and on the record at
9
the hearing on this matter that they have resolved their disputes relating to plaintiff’s request for
10
production number 68 and deposition topic number 5. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to these
11
items of discovery is denied as moot.
12
Dated: August 13, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
11.staff1187.mtc
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?