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