Henry v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 25

ORDER re: clarification (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON S. HENRY, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. /

No. C 09-00628 CRB ORDER

On April 17, 2009, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant Bank of America's (BofA) motion to strike without prejudice so as to allow further limited discovery. See Dkt. 22. The Court has received a letter from the parties seeking guidance on two issues: (1) whether Defendant BofA must file a responsive pleading before it renews its motion to strike, and (2) whether the Order allows Plaintiff Sharon Henry to propound requests for admissions and interrogatories. As to the first question, the Court hereby orders that Defendant BofA need not file a responsive pleading before and if it renews its motion to strike. The Court's Order specifically contemplated that Henry would be permitted to conduct limited discovery. BofA would then be able to renew its motion to strike if, after discovery is completed, it maintains its position that there is no probability of success on the merits.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

As to the second question, the Court will permit Plaintiff to propound requests for admissions and interrogatories. The Court's Order specified that Plaintiff's discovery is to be limited to (1) one deposition and (2) information regarding BofA's procedures for dealing with checks such as the one at issue. Plaintiff may use requests for admissions and interrogatories for obtaining such information. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2009

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2009\628\Clarification Order.wpd

2