Smith v. American Airlines Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, NOS. 1-9. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 24, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Franecke Law Group

Filed06/24/10 Page1 of 2

Louis S. Franecke, Esq. (Cal. State Bar No. 52386) FRANECKE LAW GROUP 1115 Irwin Street, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94102 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-457-7041 Randall H. Scarlett, Esq. (Cal. State Bar No. 135554) SCARLETT LAW GROUP 536 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-352-6265 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURIE SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LAURIE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants.

CASE NO. C09-02903 WHA ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, NOS. 1-9 ____________________________________

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant American Airlines came on for hearing herein on Tuesday, June 22, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., before this Court; therein appearing Louis S. Franecke for the plaintiff and Kimberly McIntyre and Kymberly Speer for the defendants. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the parties had conferred at the courthouse prior to the hearing on the issues of the Motion. The parties had resolved and agreed that defendant would provide further answers to plaintiff's Interrogatories 1-9 for those individuals who are or were American Airline employees, as the question may call for.
-1PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, NOS. 1-9

26 27 28

Case3:09-cv-02903-WHA Document63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Franecke Law Group

Filed06/24/10 Page2 of 2

However, the parties had been unable to resolve whether further answers, except as agreed upon, should be provided regarding non-defendant employees. The Court, having heard argument, reviewed the matter and for good cause orders as follows: 1. Defendant American Airlines will provide further answers to Interrogatories 1-9 as

the interrogatory may call for the identify of such witness who is or was an employee of American Airlines as the parties had agreed prior to the hearing. 2. Defendant American Airlines does not have to further answer Interrogatories 1-9 as

to other non-employee witnesses. 3. by the Court: Please state the name, address and telephone number of each and every passenger and/or crew member who you contend saw the bottle in any context prior to it hitting plaintiff on the head, and who you contend saw plaintiff's husband open the subject bin. 4. Said answers to interrogatories shall be served on or before June 30, 2010. Defendant American Airlines is to answer the following Interrogatory as composed

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT ED

Dated: June 24, 2010.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: KENNEY & MARKOWITZ LLP By__/s/ Kimberly I. McIntyre_____ Kimberly I. McIntyre Attorneys for Defendant American Airlines, Inc.

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

26 27 28
-2PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, NOS. 1-9

A

C

LI

FO

liam Als dge Wil Ju

up

R NIA

_______________________________________ JUDGE, M ALSUP WILLIA U.S. DISTRICT COURT VED Northern District PPCalifornia A of RO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

NO

RT

H