Naranjo v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Filing 15

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/10/15. Within 21 days from the date of this order, defendant shall provide further responses, without objection, to interrogatorie s nos. 9-15. Within 21 days from the date of this order, defendant shall provide, for inspection and copying, documents responsive to requests for production, nos. 11, 31. The motion to compel document requests nos. 35-38, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50 and 51 is denied without prejudice. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAURA NARANJO,

12
13

No. 2:15-cv-0882 KJM CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

14

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses.

18

Because oral argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on the briefs. E.D.

19

Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause

20

appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

21

1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 11) is granted in part and denied in part.

22

2. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, defendant shall provide further

23

responses, without objection, to interrogatories nos. 9-15, limited to stores located in Lodi,

24

Stockton, Galt, Manteca, Elk Grove, Tracy, Antioch, Modesto, Livermore, Ceres, Sacramento,

25

Pleasanton, Patterson, San Ramon, and Turlock.

26

3. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, defendant shall provide, for

27

inspection and copying, documents responsive to requests for production, nos. 11, 31 (limited to

28

e-mail custodians Michelle Rau, Tim Jacobson, Christina Ramirez, Rickey Robertson and Joseph
1

1

Rubino), 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, and 46. Considering the proportionality of the document

2

requests to the needs of the case and the other factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

26(b)(1), the motion to compel document requests nos. 35-38, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50 and 51 is denied

4

without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the motion to compel with respect to these document

5

requests upon a subsequent showing that factors not shown on the present motion or that changed

6

circumstances weigh in favor of plaintiff.

7

Dated: December 10, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12

4 naranjo0882.mtc.subm

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2