Wormuth et al v. Lammersville Union School District et al

Filing 42

ORDER AFTER HEARING signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/11/2017 ORDERING that the 36 motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents Numbers 16-21, 23, an d defendants shall produce documents responsive to these requests by 4/14/2017. The motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 5, 6, and 9-14, and defendants shall serve further response to these interrogatories by 4/14/2017, as st ated on the record. As for the remaining discovery requests, the parties are directed to further meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Should further meet and confer efforts not resolve all disputes, the parties shall file a supplem ental joint statement by 4/12/2017 addressing any remaining issues. If any remaining discovery dispute implicates the privacy concerns of thirdparties, the joint statement shall also provide the contact information for the third parties as well as a proposed briefing scheduling to allow all interested parties to be heard on matter. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

ADRIANNA WORMUTH, SCOTT
WORMUTH and H.W., a minor, by an
through his guardians ad litem
ADRIANNA WORMUTH AND SCOTT
WORMUTH,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:15-cv-1572-KJM-EFB

ORDER AFTER HEARING

Plaintiffs,
v.
LAMMERSVILLE UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, JAMES YEAGER, DAWN
IBBS, TERESA HAUN, KIRK
NICHOLAS, and KHUSHWINDER GILL,
and DOES 1-30,

18

Defendants.

19
20

This case was before the court on April 5, 2017, for hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to

21

compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories.

22

ECF No. 36.1 Attorney Rhonda Kraeber appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, attorney Stephanie Wu

23

appeared on behalf of defendants Lammersville Union School District, James Yeager, Dawn Ibbs,

24

Kirk Nicholas, and Khushwinder Gill; and attorney Christopher Allard appeared on behalf of

25

third-party defendants Naresh Singh and Mrinal Singh.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs did not file and notice for hearing a discovery motion as required by Local
Rule 251. Instead, plaintiffs simply filed a Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute. The court
construed the joint statement as a motion to compel pursuant to Local Rule 251 and directed
plaintiffs to notice the motion for hearing in compliance with the court’s local rules. ECF No. 37.
1

1
2

For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:

3

1. The motion is granted as to plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents Numbers

4

16-21, 23, and defendants shall produce documents responsive to these requests by April 14,

5

2017.

6

2. The motion is granted as to Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 5, 6, and 9-14, and

7

defendants shall serve further response to these interrogatories by April 14, 2017, as stated on the

8

record.

9

3. As for the remaining discovery requests, the parties are directed to further meet and

10

confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Should further meet and confer efforts not resolve all

11

disputes, the parties shall file a supplemental joint statement by April 12, 2017 addressing any

12

remaining issues. If any remaining discovery dispute implicates the privacy concerns of third-

13

parties, the joint statement shall also provide the contact information for the third parties as well

14

as a proposed briefing scheduling to allow all interested parties to be heard on matter.

15

So Ordered.

16

DATED: April 11, 2017.

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