Castaneda v. Burger King Corporation et al

Filing 283

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF DECEMBER 29 ORDER by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part 282 Motion (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MIGUEL CASTANEDA, KATHERINE CORBETT, and JOSEPH WELLNER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Defendant. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California No. C 08-04262 WHA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF DECEMBER 29 ORDER An October 16 order set a schedule for discovery of the information contained in defendant's accessibility surveys including measurements and photographs of the ten stores at issue in this action. Pursuant to that order, defendant could delay turning over any of the information for each of the ten stores at issue until 70 days before the trial date for each particular store in question. A December 29 order addressed when defendant must answer plaintiffs' interrogatories. It held that to the extent that defendant could answer the interrogatories from other sources than the pre-litigation surveys, it had to answer as provided by Judge Larson's November 25 order. If information was available both in the pre-litigation surveys and in other sources, defendant had to answer as provided by Judge Larson's November 25 order. To the extent that defendant's answers drew from information available only in the pre-litigation surveys, it could delay turning over that information for each of the ten stores at issue until 70 days before the trial date for each particular store in question. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Now plaintiff moves for clarification of the December 29 order as to whether documents other than the pre-litigation surveys -- such as scope-of-work documents, photographs, and punch lists generated during defendant's remediation work -- constitute "other sources than the pre-litigation surveys." To the extent that such materials were generated solely as part of the same remediation work that generated the information in the pre-litigation surveys, they do not constitute "other sources." To the extent that defendant's answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories draw solely from such materials, it may delay answering until 70 days before the trial date for each particular store in question. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: January 20, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?